|
|
APPLICATION NO. |
|
|
|
APPLICATION TYPE |
HOUSEHOLDER |
|
|
REGISTERED |
16.6.2022 |
|
|
PARISH |
HENLEY-ON-THAMES |
|
|
WARD MEMBERS |
Ken Arlett Kellie Hinton Stefan Gawrysiak |
|
|
APPLICANT |
Mr M Chart |
|
|
SITE |
Park View 10A Manor Road Henley-on-Thames, RG9 1LT |
|
|
PROPOSAL |
Proposed single storey side extension. (as amended by plans received 11 August 2022). |
|
|
OFFICER |
Hannah Gibbons |
|
1.0 |
INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL |
|
1.1 |
This application has been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Ken Arlett.
|
|
1.2 |
10A Manor Road, as shown on the OS extract attached as Appendix A, is a detached dwelling within the built-up limits of Henley-on-Thames. The property was built following planning permission granted in application P14/S1189/FUL.
|
|
1.3 |
The property is not listed and does not sit within any specially designated area.
|
|
1.4 |
The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey side extension.
|
|
1.5 |
The initial proposal included the erection of a side extension where the roof space would have been used as a habitable room and included a dormer window on the front facing roof slope. Due to concerns regarding the scale of the development in relation to the impact on the street scene and the adjoining neighbouring property amended plans have been submitted for the erection of a single storey extension only.
|
|
1.6 |
A copy of the proposed plans is attached as Appendix B whilst other documentation associated with the application can be viewed on the council’s website, www.southoxon.gov.uk. |
|
2.0 |
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS |
|
2.1 |
Henley-on-Thames Town Council - Recommend refusal on the grounds of the proposal being out of keeping with the street scene, forming dense development, and resulting in overdevelopment. The proposal being up to the site boundary would have an adverse impact on the neighbouring property.
The Henley Society (Planning) – The amended plans do not address the concerns raised by HTC, neighbours and the Henley Society and we continue to recommend refusal.
Neighbour representation – · Objection due to the proposal being an overdevelopment, resulting in a loss of light and outlook. Concerns about construction close to the boundary.
|
|
3.0 |
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY |
|
3.1 |
P14/S1189/FUL - Approved (20/06/2014) Demolition of existing detached bungalow and erection of two detached residential 2 storey dwellings - planning permission P12/S1932/FUL. New application is in regard to repositioning of the proposed house on Plot 1 by moving it backwards to better align with neighbouring building. |
|
4.0 |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT |
|
4.1 |
The proposed development is not Schedule 1 or 2 development as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. |
|
5.0 |
POLICY & GUIDANCE |
|
5.1 |
Development Plan Policies |
|
|
South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (SOLP) Policies:
DES1 - Delivering High Quality Development DES2 - Enhancing Local Character DES6 - Residential Amenity DES8 - Promoting Sustainable Design H20 - Extensions to Dwellings HEN1 - The Strategy for Henley-on-Thames STRAT1 - The Overall Strategy
|
|
5.2 |
Henley-on-Thames and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan (HHNP) Policies: |
|
|
DQS1- Design and Local Character
|
|
5.3 |
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents |
|
|
South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse Joint Design Guide 2022
|
|
5.4 |
National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance
|
|
5.5 |
Other Relevant Legislation |
|
|
Human Rights Act 1998 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the processing of the application and the preparation of this report.
|
|
|
Equality Act 2010 In determining this planning application the Council has regard to its equalities obligations including its obligations under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. |
|
6.0 |
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS |
|
6.1 |
The relevant planning considerations are the following:
· Design and character · Residential amenity
|
|
6.2 |
Design and character
· Policy H20 of the SOLP 2035 states that extensions to dwellings or the erection and extension of ancillary buildings within the curtilage of a dwelling, will be permitted provided that amenity areas are provided for the extended dwelling that accord with the Design Guide; and the proposal does not conflict with other policies in the Development Plan.
· Policy DES1 of the SOLP 2035 states that all new development must be of a high quality design that reflects the positive features that make up the character of the local area and both physically and visually enhances and compliments the surroundings. Planning permission will only be granted where proposals are designed to meet the key design objectives and principles for delivering high quality development set out in the Design Guide.
· Policy DES2 of the SOLP 2035 states that all proposals for new development should include a contextual analysis that demonstrates how the design has been informed by and responds positively to the site and its surroundings; and reinforces place identity by enhancing local character
· Policy DQS1 of the HHNP seeks to ensure that development respects the local character of the area.
|
|
6.3
|
The proposed single storey extension is a significant improvement compared to the initial proposal due to its reduction in overall height and scale. Whilst the extension would fill in the gap between the existing dwelling and the boundary this is not untypical of the built form in the surrounding area where many of the dwellings within Manor Road occupy the full width of their plots. The extension is set back from the front elevation of the existing dwelling, and is relatively modest in its overall size and height and would clearly be a subservient addition to the side of the existing dwelling. In this regard the extension complies with guidance contained within the Design Guide and the above development plan policies.
|
|
6.4 |
In light of the above and having regard to the pattern of development in the surrounding area Officers do not consider that the proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding built form and would not represent an overdevelopment of the plot.
|
|
6.5 |
Residential amenity
· Policy DES6 of the SOLP 2035 states that development proposals should demonstrate that they will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring uses, including through the loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight
· Paragraph 5.33 of the Built Form section of the Design Guide states that developers and applicants should be mindful of the impact of their proposals on the amenity of future and existing adjacent occupiers. Proposals should not give rise to any unacceptable harm.
|
|
6.6 |
The extension would be built up to the boundary fence between Nos. 10 and 10A Manor Road and would have an overall height of 3.5 metres although the eaves height would be 2.4 metres so the main wall of the extension would be less than 1 metre above the height of the boundary fence with the roof of the extension then sloping away from the boundary.
|
|
6.7 |
There are no windows proposed in the side of the extension and therefore no loss of privacy to No. 10. The depth of the extension along the boundary is approximately 9.5 metres. No. 10 has openings at ground floor level facing the boundary of No. 10A. The outlook from these openings is already compromised by the boundary fence and the side elevation of No. 10A, and Officers do not consider that the relatively modest projection of the extension above the fence line would result in any material harm to the outlook or light to these windows. Two of the openings in the side of No. 10 are positioned beyond the rear elevation of the extension and so direct outlook from these openings would be unaffected whilst the one window directly opposite the extension is part of an open plan area served by other openings, and any increased loss of outlook or light to this window would be mitigated by this internal arrangement. In light of the above Officers do not consider that the extension would have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of No.10 and therefore the proposal is in accordance with Policy DES6 of the SOLP.
|
|
6.8 |
Community Infrastructure Levy |
|
|
The proposed development is not liable to pay CIL as the net increase in residential floor space does not exceed 100m2
|
|
6.9 |
Pre-commencement conditions |
|
|
No pre-commencement conditions are required. |
|
7.0 |
CONCLUSION |
|
7.1 |
Officers consider that the proposal complies with the relevant Development Plan policies and, subject to the recommended conditions, the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of its relationship to the character of the existing dwelling, its site and it is also acceptable in terms of its impact on neighbouring amenity.
|
|
8.0 |
RECOMMENDATION |
|
|
Planning Permission is granted subject to the following conditions: |
|
|
1 : Commencement of development within 3 years 2 : Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans 3 : Matching materials to be used
|
Author: Hannah Gibbons
Tel: 01235 422600
Email: Planning@southoxon.gov.uk