Development Management Report

Committee and Date Item/Paper Central Planning Committee 8th July 2010 15 Public

Application Number: 10/01816/FUL Parish: Shrewsbury Town Council

Grid 350352 - 310464 Ref:

Proposal: Sub-division of existing dwelling to form 2 dwellings; alterations to roofline to side elevation

Site Address: 148 Sutton Road Shrewsbury Shropshire SY2 6QT

Applicant: Mr J Tilling

Case Officer: Amy Mottram email: [email protected]

1.0 THE PROPOSAL 1.1 This application is a resubmission and is seeking to subdivide the property into two separate units of residential accommodation – a 2bedroom unit and a 4bedroom unit with associated on street parking and private amenity space. The previous application sought planning permission for the subdivision of the property into 3 units of residential accommodation but was refused on intensification grounds.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site is located within the Sutton Farm area to the south of the town centre. The area is residential in character, with a mixture of house types around the dwelling – single storey bungalows to the side and rear and two storey terraced properties opposite. Properties along Sutton Road are set back from the highway with off street parking at the front. No. 148 has a double garage fronting Sutton Road and parking provision in front of the garage for up to 4 vehicles. 2.2 The dwelling benefits from a large garden at the side adjacent to the junction with Melrose Drive and a smaller area of amenity space at the rear. The scale and design of the property appears to have evolved over the years from a single storey dwelling to a two storey property having had several extensions approved in relation to a business use operating from the site for a chiropractor.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 The application is approved.

4.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION 4.1 The scheme does not comply with the delegation to officers as set out in Part 8 on the Shropshire Council Constitution as 6 or more individual representations have been received relating to material planning reasons

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 10/00453/FUL – Proposed sub division of dwelling into 3 apartments. Refused 25th march 2010. Appeal in progress.

5.2 SA/91/0005 - Extension to provide enlarged lounge with new bedroom and bathroom over and provision of staircase for access. Enlargement of existing entrance lobby. Refused 30th January 1991,

5.3 SA/90/0263 - Alterations and extensions to existing dwelling. Approved 24th May 1990.

5.4 SA/90/1191 – Extend existing lounge and construct new bedroom and bathroom over. Provision of staircase for access, and construction of a new porch. Refused 28th November 1990.

5.5 SA/87/0763 - Alterations and additions to provide a 2 storey rear extension forming living accommodation and the formation of a new pedestrian access. Refused 1st October 1987.

5.6 SA/79/0910 – Erection of an extension to provide lounge and study but to be used temporarily as an office and 2 consulting rooms at premises currently used on a temporary basis as chiropractic consulting rooms, formation of vehicular and pedestrian accesses and form temporary car park. Refused 30th October 1979. Dismissed at appeal.

5.7 SA/77/0281 - Change of Use of existing dwelling to Chiropractic Consulting Rooms. Approved 24th May 1977.

5.8 SA/76/1057 – Erection of an extension to provide consulting rooms. Refused 24th May 1977. 6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service - The fire service has no comment regarding the provision of access for appliances and water supplies for fire fighting. However the applicant is requested to consider the following advice. Sprinkler Systems - Residential Premises.

6.2 Tree Officer – No objection.

7.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Immediate neighbouring properties have been notified and site notice erected. 9 letters of objection have been received and are available to view in full on the planning file. The objections raised are as follows:  Having studied the plans and consulted an architect, it is quite obvious that this application is to turn the property into a care home with up to 12 beds. That would require a change of use. A letter from a previous appeal Ref: - T/APP/5360/A/80/5465/G8 clearly states that the premises are to revert to a dwelling house when discontinued as a Chiropractor Clinic.  The rear garden area is quite small and the open plan frontage would be fenced in to provide a light exercise area for the residents. Such a fence would contravene the open plan of this estate.  With a knowledge of care homes, such a business would increase the already busy Sutton Road traffic and make Melrose Drive a parking, vehicle unloading and turning area and destroy the existing amenities.  This site has been over developed and with the proposed alteration to the conservatory would look even more ridiculous, not to mention the extra strain on the footings which were not intended to carry such weight.  This is a devious approach to get around the change of use restriction and to underhandedly carry out a business, disguised as affordable flats.  There is no submitted evidence to show that the area needs smaller housing. The scheme is to ultimately operate a ‘care home’ business which will be horrendous, making it a 24/7 operation with parking, access and noise issues – hence the provision of ramped access.  Substantial increased used of the rear access from Melrose Drive. Parking is show at the front of the property but residents wont want to walk all the way round to the rear so will obviously park on Melrose Drive to be closer. This will block the turning head and cause congestion problems.  Issues with drainage across the area – this proposal will make the system worse.  Unwelcome precedent where no other flats exist.  Horrendous visual impact of new roof.  Concern for over occupancy of the site.  Parking and related noise issues.  Maintenance of front garden area.  Storage of refuse bins.  The motive and real reason for the proposal.

8.0 PLANNING POLICY 8.1 Central Government Guidance: PPS1: Delivering sustainable development PPS3: Housing

8.2 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: QE2: Restoring degraded areas and managing and creating high quality new environments for all.

8.3 Local Plan: GP1: General requirements for development GP2: Character and setting GP4: Alterations and extensions HS2: Residential development on sites within Shrewsbury not allocated under policy HS1.

9.0 THE MAIN ISSUES  Principle of development  Design, scale and character  Impact on neighbours residential amenity

10.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL 10.1 Principal of Development 10.1.1 It should be noted that the submitted application is seeking to sub-divide a single residential dwelling into two separate units of residential accommodation. The application forms make no reference to a care home facility being provided within the building and assessment of the scheme has been made purely on the suitability of the property to be sub-divided into two smaller residential units. A change of use application would be required to change the domestic use of the building into a care facility as claimed by objections received.

10.1.2 The principle of the proposal is acceptable given the location of the site within a residential area. The external form and character of the building would not change significantly, with the replacement of a flat roof (with a pitch) being the only alterations to the external fabric of the building. 10.2 Design, Scale and Character 10.2.1 Given that the foot print would remain the same and the external appearance of the property would remain predominantly unaltered by the development, the visual impact of the proposal upon the character of the surrounding area is not considered to be significant.

10.2.2 The internal layout of the property appears to lend itself quite well to being subdivided into two flats. Unit 1 would be a 4-bed unit on the ground floor, with one garage space and parking for two vehicles off the road. Unit 1 would have a separate rear garden area and timber summer house available for use also. Unit 2 would incorporate the first floor accommodation of the existing dwelling. It would be access from the rear of the building with a kitchen and lounge area/dining area on the ground floor and two bedrooms above with a shared balcony overlooking the junction of Sutton Road and Melrose Drive.

10.2.3 Concerns were raised during the previous application with regard to the potential impact of the parking area upon the root system of a tree located within the boundary of the site and no.1 Melrose Drive to the rear. Whilst the use of the area at the rear of the site would not require planning permission if used for additional parking, the impact of additional parking may have a negative impact upon the root structure of the tree. A condition has been attached to address this.

10.3 Impact on neighbours/residential amenity 10.3.1 The scheme provides a sufficient level of off street parking and additional parking could also be provided at the rear of the site without requiring planning permission. Concerns therefore regarding additional parking and congestion issues within Melrose Drive are therefore not deemed to be significant. The site is also well served public transport links and Officers therefore conclude that adequate parking provision can be made for the size of development proposed without impact detrimentally upon highway safety or the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

10.3.2 The size of the units proposed are considered to be in keeping with the overall character of the area – no additional floor space is being created within the development, utilising existing available floor area to create useable living space for both units of accommodation. The area at the front of the property is open and not defined any form of boundary treatment. This appears to be a characteristic feature of the area and as such a condition is recommended that would control the type, if any, of boundary treatment along the front of the site. The visual appearance of the site within the context of the street scene is unlikely to change according to the plans, given the provision of private amenity space for each residential unit at the rear of the property only. 11.0 CONCLUSION 11.1 The proposal has been scaled down in comparison to the previously refused scheme for 3no. residential units – 10/00453/FUL. The property and plot size is of a size and scale that lends itself well to be subdivided into 2no. smaller units of residential accommodation. Separate access can be provided for each unit and ample off street parking can be provided within the site boundary. The amount of living space provided within each unit well laid out, providing double bedrooms on both the ground and first floor.

11.2 Whilst the use of the balcony is likely to increase should permission be granted, it is situated on the side elevation of the dwelling, overlooking the junction of Melrose Drive and Sutton Road and is highly visible from both approach roads. Despite the concerns raised, the balcony would only overlook the front of neighbouring properties and is a sufficient distance from adjacent dwellings to not raise significant overlooking and loss of privacy concerns.

11.3 Existing saved policies and regional and national guidance has been taken into account when determining this application and it is considered that the proposal would not result in demonstrable harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents in terms of intensified use or have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:

HUMAN RIGHTS Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community. First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents. This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

Environment Appraisal In report Risk Management Appraisal N/A Community / Consultations Appraisal In report Member Champion Councillor M Taylor-Smith Local Member Councillor J Tandy Appendices None

Reason for Approval

1. The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the scale of the existing dwelling, utilising the internal layout of the property to a satisfactory level and would not be detrimental to existing residential amenities. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policies GP1, GP2 and GP4 of the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Local Plan 2001.

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and drawings.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

3. The external materials shall match those of the existing building and there shall be no variation without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the works harmonise with the existing development.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), the following development shall not be undertaken without express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority:- - extension to the dwelling - free standing building within the curtilage of the dwelling - addition or alteration to the roof - erection of a porch - hard surfacing - any windows or dormer windows

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and so safeguard the character and visual amenities of the area, and to ensure that adequate private open space is retained within the curtilage of the building.

5. Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing no. AP10009/20 received on 5th May 2010 no vehicular access will be obtained from the rear of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect amenity and to the safeguard the root area of the tree.