JPPC Ref: SS/6950 Planning Services Wokingham Borough Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JPPC ref: SS/6950 Planning Services Wokingham Borough Council *Submitted electronically* Planning Portal Ref: PP-08092357 19th August 2019 Dear Sir/Madam APPLICATION SEEKING A LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE FOR PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS PROPOSED TO EXISTING DWELLINGHOUSE COMPRISING: 1. TWO STOREY EXTENSIONS TO FRONT ELEVATION 2. SINGLE STOREY EXTENSIONS TO SIDE OF DWELLINGHOUSE 3. TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION; 4. ERECTION OF TWO SINGLE-STOREY INCIDENTAL OUTBUILDINGS HATCHGATE END, HATCH GATE LANE, COCKPOLE GREEN, WARGRAVE, RG10 8NE (RESUBMISSION OF DECLINED APPLICATION 191455) This application seeks confirmation of the ability to enlarge and improve the subject dwellinghouse in the ways described above without the need to seek full planning permission as well as the provision of 2no. single-storey incidental buildings. The application is accompanied by the following plans and documents: - This Statement, which described why each of the operations described is considered to be lawful without the need for a further planning approval; - Drawing Ref. 1820 PL001 P01 Location Plan (1:1250 / 1:2500) and Site Plan (1:250 / 1:500) as existing; - Drawing Ref. 1820 PL002 P01 Existing Plans and Elevations (1:100 / 1:200); - Drawing Ref. 1820 PL004 P05 Proposed Floor Plans showing additions (1:100 / 1:200); - Drawing Ref. 1820 PL005 P03 Elevations and Sections as Proposed (1:100 / 1:200); - Drawing Ref. 1820 PL006 P04 Massing Drawings; - Drawing Ref. 1820 PL007 P03 Location Plan (1:1250 / 1:2500) and Site Plan (1:250 / 1:500) as proposed; - Drawing Ref. 1820 PL008 P02 Proposed Volumes for Outbuildings; - Drawing Ref. 1820 PL009 P01 Garage Plan and Elevations (1:100 / 1:50); - Drawing Ref. 1820 PL010 P01 Summer House Plans and Elevations (1:100 / 1:50). - A series of photographs from the 1988 sales particulars (Appendix 1) PLANNING ISSUES 1. This Statement accompanies an application under s.192 of the Town and Country Planning Act seeking confirmation of the ability to erect single and two storey extensions to the property known as Hatchgate End (“the dwellinghouse”). 2. This is a resubmission of an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness to Wokingham Borough Council within one month of the Council’s previous refusal to issue a certificate (no application fee is therefore payable, as this is the first resubmission within twelve months and relates to development of broadly the same description and character). 3. The current submission seeks to address specifically those reasons for not issuing the Certificate by providing additional information to demonstrate that the proposed works would be lawful. 4. The current submission seeks to address specifically those reasons for the refusal of the last application. Previous submission 5. An application seeking the issue of a proposed lawful development certificate was made to Wokingham Borough Council on 30th May 2019, seeking confirmation of the ability to carry out works without the need for planning permission, comprising the erection of single and two storey extensions and the erection of single storey outbuildings within the curtilage of the dwelling. The plans accompanying that submission and the planning statement (JPPC 30th May 2019) are attached as Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 respectively. 6. Following receipt of the application, the Council validated the application on 4th June 2019, allocating it the application number 191455, with the description as follows: Proposed Lawful Development Certificate for the erection of: two storey front extensions single storey side extensions two storey rear extension 2no single storey incidental outbuildings (triple garage/garden store & summer house/pool) 7. The Council declined to issue a Lawful Development Certificate on 30th July 2019. A copy of the decision notice is attached as Appendix 4 and a copy of the Officer’s Report is attached as Appendix 5. 8. The assessment of Officers was that the development proposed and described would not have been lawful within the meaning of s.192 of the 2 Town and Country Planning Act. The reason given for this was as follows (as set out on the refusal notice): The proposal constitutes development and thus requires planning permission. Permission is available under Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. However, the single storey side extensions and two storey rear extension are interconnecting. Also, the single storey side extensions are more than half the width of the original semi- detached houses. As a result, the proposal is not in accordance with Schedule 2 (Part 1) (Class A) with respect to parts (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of the Order. 9. Seeking to elaborate upon these refusal reasons, the Officer’s Report states as follows with regard to the alleged interconnectivity of the single storey side and two storey rear extensions: A.1(f), (g), (h), (i) and (j): The single storey side extensions are built onto and connect with the south eastern as well as north western corners of the original dwelling, which are proposed to be retained. Likewise, the two storey rear extension will be built onto and connect with the same corners of the building. The structural works required to accommodate the loads imposed by the existing dwelling and the one and two storey extensions proposed as part of this certificate are such that they will be interconnecting, with supports built into this corner of the building, Whilst the single storey side extensions accord with part (f) when considered on their own, the fact that they are interconnecting with the two storey extension renders them non-compliant with parts (f), (g), (h) (i) and (j) 10. Turning to the two side extensions, the Officer’s report identified that whilst each of the side extensions would be half of the width of the detached building, “the original dwelling was not a detached but a pair of semis and as such, each side extension should be half of the width of the original semi-detached houses. As such the excessive width of the two sides extensions renders them non-compliant with part (j) [of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 ("the GPDO")]. 11. It is our view that further clarification in respect of the points above could have been sought by the Council during the determination period of the previous application and the applicants were happy to do so, as outlined in the email from this Office to the Council dated 16th July 2019. No response to this invitation was forthcoming. The current submission seeks to provide this clarification and to avoid the need for a planning appeal. 12. In respect of the first reason for the Council’s decision not to issue a Certificate of Lawfulness, structural works of the types suggested are not required in connection with the enlargements proposed. 13. Referring to the DCLG’s Technical Guidance document (“Permitted development rights for householders”) (April 2017) shows a comparable example of development (a side extension that is no more than half of the width of the original house and a rear extension that takes up the whole width) that is assessed as being permitted development: 3 Fig.1 Excerpt from Permitted Development Rights for Householders: Technical Guidance (2017) 14. Notwithstanding this, the drawings associated with the current submission (Dwgs 1820 PL004 – PL006) have been amended for the avoidance of any doubt, such that the two storey rear extension would be inset by 300mm on either side. 15. The proposed extensions can be built without any reliance for structural support between the side and rear extensions, with separate foundations and would constitute wholly separate acts of development. Any steels inserted to form openings in the existing elevations would not be a part of the extensions and would not connect with each other in any way. 16. Turning to the second reason given by Officers for the refusal to issue a lawful development certificate in respect of the previous submission, the Council’s assessment of the works that can be undertaken to Hatchgate End as permitted development hinges upon the assessment of what amounts to the “original” dwellinghouse. 17. It is suggested, based upon sales particulars issued when the Hatchgate Farm estate was split into portions for sale in 1988 (excerpts at Appendix 1), that the amalgamation of the two semi-detached properties into a single dwelling is likely to have taken place at this time (this is evidenced by a building regulations approval from the same period). 4 18. It is questionable whether the amalgamation would have required planning permission at the time it appears to have happened1, although it appears that some fairly modest physical alterations were made to the building at the same time, including the creation of the existing dormer and catslide roof at the front of the building to facilitate the use of the building as a single dwellinghouse. 19. Those works in isolation are likely to have required planning permission, however any breach of planning control would now be immune from enforcement action. Section 171B(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act provides that a breach of planning control consisting of the change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse (or the carrying out of building work without planning permission) becomes immune from any enforcement action after four years. 20. The works to the building (comprising of enlargements to the front and rear) took place more than 30 years ago as evidenced by the photographs, and the amalgamation of the building to create a single residential unit occurred at this time also. Any unauthorised development would be immune from enforcement action. 21. The amalgamation of two residential dwellings to create a single dwelling would have, in effect, created a new planning unit, opening a new chapter in the site’s planning history.