Report To Regulatory Committee - 10 June 2009 Development Control
Subject : Appeal Decisions Quarterly Summary Report Report Ref : Appeals Quarterly Report Ward(s) : All Report Of : Head of Planning and Transport Derek Vout - Direct Line (01256) 845403. Contact : E-mail - Derek.Vout@basingstoke.gov.uk Reporting Dates : 1st February 2009 to 30th April 2009 Papers relied on to Appeal Decisions published by The Planning Inspectorate. produce this http://www.planning-inspectorate.gsi.gov.uk report: Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN
SUMMARY
1.0 This Report :
1.1 Attached as Appendix A and B is a summary analysis of the appeal decisions received from the 1st February 2009 to 30th April 2009. This highlights some of the issues drawn out by the Inspectors in arriving at their decision and which should be taken into account when future decisions are made, but is by no means a summary of all the issues referred to in the Inspectors’ decision notices.
1.2 Those decisions of particular note have been more fully detailed in Appendix A. A full copy of the decision letters can be requested from the contact above.
1.3 Any comments or suggestions on this quarterly report are welcomed from Members. Members may want to note that the next Appeal Summary Report will be reported to the September 2009 Development Control Committee meeting.
1.4 Any costs decisions are reported with each planning appeal. The agreed amount is finalised sometime after the appeal decision is issued. Between 1st February 2008 and 30th April 2009 there have been no settlements to report to members.
1 of 15
2 Priorities, Impacts and Risks
Contribution To Council Priorities This report accords with the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework Council Plan Ref 06-09: Priority 3 Service Plan Ref 06-09: PL9 Other References: Contribution To Community Strategy Community Strategy Ref 03-06: Impacts No Some Significant Type significant impacts impacts impacts Impacts for Financial BDBC Personnel Legal Impacts on Equality and Diversity Wellbeing Crime and Disorder Health Environment Economic Involving Communication/Consultation Others Partners Risk Assessment Number of risks identified: Number of risks considered HIGH or Medium: Yes Strategic: Already identified on Corporate Risk Register? No Yes Operational: Already identified in Service Plans? No
2 of 15 APPENDIX A
04/02/2009 60/60a Hill Road, Oakley BDB 67282 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is demolition of two existing bungalows, erection of 3 No. 2 storey houses and 2 No. 2 storey units comprising 4 No. 1 bed flats and creation of new vehicular access.
The limited opportunity for soft landscaping along the eastern boundary and the amount of hard surfacing to the long access road, together with the proposed parking spaces along the access road would all combine to create an urban feel which would be out of character with the more open appearance and character of development in the local area.
The proposed siting of the front building block in relation to No. 1 Safoin Lane and the proximity of its gable flank elevation to the boundary would combine to dominate the outlook to the rear for the adjoining neighbours, particularly from within their rear garden area.
The concentration of the parking and turning area in close proximity to the rear boundary would cause noise and disturbance to neighbours, particularly when in their rear gardens, where they might reasonably be expected to enjoy relative quiet and seclusion.
There would be a need for some cars to overhang the carriageway when exiting the site in order to gain full visibility to the east, and this combined with the characteristics of the highway would add a compromise to highway manoeuvres.
Policies referred :
A1, A2, E1 and D5 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG - Oakley and Deane Village Design Guide SPG - Places to Live SPG - Residential Parking Standards
04/02/2009 3 Church Brook, Tadley BDB/67421/67422/EC/07/00234 Part Allowed
Decision Level : Committee Recommendation: Refuse Final Decision: Refuse
The planning applications (part retrospective) and enforcement notice concerned works proposed in Listed Building Application BDB/67422, and development proposed in planning Application BDB/67421, that being: 1. Retention of replacement barn with proposed alterations to southern elevation; 2. Retention of two storey extension with casements painted to match those on the listed cottage; 3. Retention of single-storey extension with conservation rooflight in south elevation and proposed weatherboard cladding; 4. Retention of covered walkway between items 1 and 3 with proposed oak frame and glazed elevations; 5. Retention of double garage; 6. Retention of extension to garage with proposed alterations to roof; 7. Alterations to porch; 8. Retention of timber clad boiler housing;
3 of 15 9. Internal alterations and refurbishment of cottage (revision to BDB/56539 – retrospective) (Listed building consent application BDB/67422 only)
The Inspector concluded that the form and size of the barn and the two storey extension do not harm the special architectural character or historic interest of the listed building and its setting. Also, the windows in the extensions are acceptable. The Inspector therefore granted planning permission and listed building consent (where appropriate) for those items.
The Inspector found that the link, porch, single storey extension and the ‘as built’ windows in the barn have a detrimental impact on the listed building and its setting and the Inspector therefore upholds the enforcement notice and listed building enforcement notice in respect of these items and refuses to grant planning permission and listed building consent for them.
Policies referred :
E1 and E2 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan E16 – Hampshire County Structure Plan SPG Design Guide 2 - Extending Your Home (2001) SPG - The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings
12/02/2009 Bonnyrigg, Byes Lane, Silchester BDB 68472 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is demolition of bungalow and erection of replacement house.
Taken in isolation from its context the proposal has more architectural merit than the existing bungalow. However, the existing bungalow is relatively unobtrusive. The greater bulk of the proposed house and its design form would be noticeably more prominent and imposing in its landscape setting. This would harmfully undermine the rural character of the area.
Policies referred :
D6, E1, E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan PPS 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Silchester Village Design Statement
4 of 15
09/03/2009 17 Alliston Way, Whitchurch BDB 68640 Dismissed
Decision Level : Committee Recommendation: Refuse Final Decision: Refuse
The development proposed is the change of use of public open space to residential curtilage and enclose by a 1.8m fence.
Although the area proposed to be enclosed is not large, the presence of the fence would have the effect of reducing the openness of the estate.
Taking into consideration only the plans submitted with the original application, there is insufficient evidence to show that the visibility splays required in line with MfS could be achieved.
Policies referred :
C7, E1, E3 and E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan
10/03/2009 27 Verdi Close, Basingstoke BDB 69014 Allowed
Decision Level : Committee Recommendation: Allow Final Decision: Refuse
The development proposed is conversion to two self contained flats.
Given the location of the proposed bin store, a structure of the scale proposed would be very conspicuous. There is however the potential for accommodating a split bin storage with some to the front and some to the rear of the property.
The creation of a second front door would not unduly affect the appearance of the property. While there would be some loss of the present symmetry between Nos 26 and 27, the new porch would be a relatively minor feature that would be subservient to the present front elevation to No.27.
COST application - refused The members had good grounds for concluding as they did about the impact of the bin enclosure, given the plans submitted. Regarding the effect upon symmetry of a second front door and a covered porch, the Inspector felt that the council could not be faulted for considering this matter which is one referred to in the now adopted SPD.
Policies referred :
E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan
5 of 15
24/03/2009 41 Mortimer Gardens, Tadley BDB 68877 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation: Refuse
The development proposed is the partial demolition of existing garage and utility extension and construction of 2 self contained flats.
To provide access to the proposed first floor flat, a covered stairway would be provided to the side of the proposed extension. The combination of the reduced width and height, the detailing of the stairway door and the positioning of the doors would make the proposed overall extension appear unbalanced, incongruous, and out of keeping with other dwellings in the adjoining terrace.
To the rear of the proposed extension, light would be provided to the living room and kitchen of the first floor extension by a relatively large flat roofed dormer window. This would be completely out of keeping with the details exhibited by the other dwellings in the existing terrace.
Policies referred :
E1 and C3 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG Design Guide 2 - Extending Your Home (2001) SPD Housing Mix and Mobility Standards
24/03/2009 41 Mortimer Gardens, Tadley BDB 69363 Allowed
Decision Level : Committee Recommendation: Allow Final Decision: Refuse
The development proposed is the alteration to existing garage and utility extension and extension to that to form new 2 bedroom house.
The appearance of the front elevation of the proposed dwelling would be characteristic of others within the terrace, being of a similar size and scale and having a similar porch detail to the door, which would itself be situated so as to be in keeping with the spacing and rhythm of adjacent doors.
The rear elevation would be in keeping, in terms of fenestration and arrangement, with the adjacent dwellings in the terrace.
There is no turning head at the end of Mortimer Gardens and consequently vehicles would need to undertake reversing manoeuvres. However, the Inspector considered that the standard of the road would be appropriate for this.
Policies referred :
E1 and A1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan
6 of 15
27/03/2009 8 Hill Road, Oakley BDB 68615 Allowed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation: Refuse
The development proposed is erection of six dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping, following demolition of existing bungalow. The Council’s overriding concerns related to the effect that the proposed house on plot 6 would have on the setting of the adjacent terrace of cottages.
The proposed house on plot 6 would be erected on a reduced ground level to lessen its impact. This would preserve the setting of the cottages at 10-14 Hill Road because they would remain dominant in the street scene. The new house would sit comfortably and harmoniously behind the cottages, without harm to their setting in the street scene.
The proposed house would be entirely concealed from view within the Conservation Area. Moreover, the Conservation Area would be largely concealed from plot 6, which would overcome any perceived harm to its character and appearance.
COST application – Costs granted to Appellant: The second reason for refusal ignored the councils Tree Officer, who raised no objection to the impact on the leylandii hedge, which was in poor condition and of little amenity value.
The single building on plot 6, which had been re-designed to minimise its impact did not render the proposal out of character with its surroundings, was not visually intrusive or harmful to the setting of the neighbouring terrace. Additionally, plot 6 is entirely concealed from view within the Conservation Area, which itself is largely concealed from view within plot 6.
The local planning authority acted unreasonably in refusing planning permission for the scheme and was unable to identify precise harm to the setting of the terrace, the setting of the Conservation Area or to identify visual detriment, while views in and out of the Conservation area are non-existent in relation to plot 6.
Policies referred :
E2 and E3 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG - The Historic Environment: Buildings of Local Interest SPG - The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas SPG - Church Oakley Conservation Area
7 of 15
16/04/2009 93 Millard Close, Basingstoke BDB 69233 Dismissed
Decision Level : Committee Recommendation: Allow Final Decision: Refuse
The development proposed is described as conversion to two self-contained flats.
The depth of the bin store together with its height, which would be greater than the fence, would result in it having a significantly greater visual impact than the existing fence. The proposed new bin store would be an incongruous new feature in the context of its surroundings in the front garden area.
The proposed new bin store would be located close to the boundary with the adjoining dwelling no. 92 Millard Close and at its closest point, the bin store would only be some 2m from the kitchen window of that adjoining dwelling. It would be more likely than not to have an unacceptable impact as a result of odour emanating from the bins, particularly during warmer weather.
COST application - refused: The Council showed that it had reasonable planning grounds for not following the advice of its officers and the relevant evidence was produced to substantiate its reason for refusal. The reason for refusal was substantiated by reference to the development plan and all other material considerations were also taken into account.
Policies referred :
E1 and D4 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD – Design and Sustainability (2008)
8 of 15
APPENDIX B
02/02/2009 1-4 Millars, Station Road, Cliddesden BDB 68420 Allowed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is demolition of existing dwellings and erection of 4 x two bedroom dwellings.
The current building is of little architectural or visual merit; its main attribute is its un- intrusive nature in the local landscape because of its low profile.
The proposed terrace would be of greater height and mass than the present Millars and the replacement of the existing building by the sympathetically designed terrace would be a positive contribution to the landscape in the vicinity.
Taking into account the retention of existing hedging, the close presence of substantial trees and the proposals for new planting, the terraced houses would blend acceptably into the rural setting.
Policies referred :
D6, E1, E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan PPS 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Cliddesden Village Design Statement
03/02/2009 Stanley Villa, Ashford Hill Road, Ashford Hill BDB 69290 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is the erection of a two bedroom dwelling and associated access.
Being set forward as proposed, the dwelling would be much closer to the road than the deeper-set houses up the hill. As a consequence the house would have a visually uncomfortable relationship with these dwellings and by standing out in the street scene, particularly on the approach down the hill, the prominence of the house would be damaging to the appearance of Ashford Hill Road.
While it might be physically possible to park four vehicles on the area shown in the scheme, there would be no effective scope to turn to enable a driver to emerge onto Ashford Hill Road in forward gear. The consequential likelihood of reversing out into the road would be detrimental to safety.
Policies referred :
E1, and E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan
9 of 15 03/02/2009 Greenlands Farm, Bramley Road, Silchester BDB 68958 Allowed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is erection of an oak frame three bay garage with pitch roof and clock to centre roof area of front elevation.
Permission for an oak framed, hip roofed double garage with log store was granted in 2008. The new proposals are an increase in breadth, and the allied increased roof
The scale of the building would provide an acceptable enclosure to the parking area and in its design the building would be complimentary to the larger barn and would not detract from the visual qualities of the locality.
Policies referred :
E1, E3, and E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG - The Historic Enviroment SPG - Silchester Conservation Area Appraisel Silchester Village Design Statement PPS 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
03/02/2009 Larch Cottage, Dunley, Whitchurch BDB 69020 Allowed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is the erection of a part single storey, part two storey rear extension and the erection of a bay window to front of dwelling.
The Inspector did not find the addition of the two storey extension to be excessive and unduly dominant or to be disproportionate to the existing dwelling. The new gable would be subservient to the rear face of the house and its width would be comparable to that of the present gable end.
From the road on the other side of the valley, the extension would not be visually significant. In the near view from the lane in front, sight of the side of the rear extension would be limited. There would be no public views of the rear extension from the higher land behind the dwelling. The Inspector therefore considered that the extensions would not be damaging to the landscape in this part of the AONB.
Policies referred :
E1 and E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG Design Guide 2 - Extending Your Home (2001) PPS 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
10 of 15 04/02/2009 5 Manor Road, Sherborne St John BDB 69231 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is a one bedroom bungalow and detached garage.
Even allowing for the fact of its small size the dwelling would appear cramped on its plot. It would have a rear garden of only 7m depth and the existing bungalow would be left with a garden of a similar restricted size, with a separation distance of only 12m.
The constricted nature of the proposed bungalow on its plot and its cramped relationship with the host dwelling would result in a low level of amenity for occupiers of the two properties. The cramped development proposed would be wholly at odds with the current spacious character and would diminish the amenity of neighbouring properties.
Policies referred :
E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG - Sherborne St John Village Design Guide SPG - Places to Live – Urban Design Guidance
13/02/2009 55 Thyme Close, Chineham BDB 68377 Allowed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is the change of use of open space to residential curtilage enclosed by a 1.22m high fence sited on existing 1.52m high brick wall.
The open space at the proposed site has an important amenity value but only in terms of the contribution that the laurel hedge makes to the appearance of the area. The appellants agreed to modify the scheme to ensure that the laurel hedge is kept, and provided that the new 1.22m fence is sited no closer than 1.5m from the top of the boundary retaining wall, this would enable the majority of the laurel bushes to be retained.
Policies referred :
E1 and C7 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan
16/02/2009 33 Manor Road, Sherborne St John BDB 67913 Allowed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is first floor extension including raising the existing roof to form living accommodation.
The proposal would radically alter the scale and appearance of the existing building, however it would not appear as excessively large or unduly prominent in the context of neighbouring properties. The proposed porch and chimney are modest in scale and of traditional design form, and neither would be incongruous in the street scene.
The proposal would retain a gap between buildings which would compare favourably with the spacing between other nearby buildings.
11 of 15
The bulk of the proposed extension would be alongside no. 31 and so would not affect the levels of light reaching the front and rear facing rooms, or the outlook from them.
Policies referred :
E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG Design Guide 2 - Extending Your Home (2001)
05/03/2009 Broad Oaks, Broad Lane, Adbury BDB 67689 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The appeal was against a refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC) for the use of land as residential land.
There was one main issue, whether the use of the appeal site as garden land associated with the adjacent dwelling “Broad Oaks” has resulted in a material change of use of the land and if so, whether, on the balance of probability, this change of use for residential purposes took place prior to the 7 December 1997.
The Council produced compelling documentary evidence in the form of the “Hedges Plan” and an accompanying letter submitted as part of the 1998 LDC application which clearly showed that at this time the appeal site was not part of the residential use being claimed. Moreover this evidence was corroborated by the statements given on oath by one of their planning officers who confirmed that during 1999 and up until at least September 2000 a residential use had not commenced.
Policies referred :
N/A
09/03/2009 93, Derwent Road, Kempshott BDB 68889 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation: Refuse
The development proposed is the erection of one three bed house and garage.
The proposed dwelling would be situated in the rear garden of No 93. While it would be orientated so as to mirror the adjacent properties and have a similar footprint and plot width to them, it would be isolated and removed from the established pattern of development. It would therefore appear incongruous and out of keeping with the surrounding built form.
Neither of the two first floor windows of No93 are fitted with obscure glazing and the smaller of the two would have clear views into the rear amenity area of the proposed dwelling, the nearest point of which would be about 4m away from the window. Given the topography of the site and the lack of screening this would be an unacceptable situation for the potential occupiers of the proposed dwelling.
Policies referred :
E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan
12 of 15 09/03/2009 9 Puttenham Road, Chineham BDB 68700 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is a first floor side extension and enclosure of open porch at front.
The proposed new gable would be higher and wider than the existing one and the overall result would be to make the dwelling appear unbalanced, with the proposed gable dominating the front elevation. The appearance of the host dwelling would therefore be altered out of all recognition compared to the original property, and would be out of keeping with other adjacent properties.
Policies referred :
E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG Design Guide 2 - Extending Your Home (2001)
10/03/2009 Oakwood House, Ball Hill, Newbury BDB 68051 Allowed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is first floor extension over existing kitchen to provide two bedrooms and family bathroom. New garden room to replace existing conservatory.
None of the key elevational elements of the proposed extension would compete unacceptably in scale with the existing house when viewed from key perspectives.
The employment of the hipped roof form, in design terms, is not in conflict with the established character and appearance of the building.
The proposed extension, though undoubtedly of greater stature and presence in relation to the existing house, responds in an architecturally positive manner that would compliment rather than detract from the character and appearance of the existing dwelling.
Policies referred :
E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD Design Guide 2 - Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings
25/03/2009 Cold Harbour Cottage, Herriard BDB 69277 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is a two storey extension, new porch and balcony/pergola.
The proposed extension would increase the size of the dwelling considerably, changing its appearance with the addition of an extra gable and porch detail to the front elevation. This would result in the property taking on the appearance more of a large farmhouse than a country cottage as it is at present. The extension would not be subservient to the host building and would result in a dwelling that would be completely different in character to the original.
13 of 15 Policies referred :
E1 and E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG Design Guide 2 - Extending Your Home (2002)
06/04/2009 5 Lightfoot Grove, Basingstoke BDB 69602 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is the erection of a two storey side and rear extension, with single storey element and the erection of a conservatory to the rear.
The proposed extension would be a dominant addition to the existing dwelling and although the ridge line would be slightly below that of the existing house and the first floor would be narrower than the ground floor, the extension would nevertheless appear intrusive because of its scale and siting.
The existing gap at first floor level would be lost and the addition of such a deep first floor so close to the boundary would result in the property looking cramped in the street scene.
Policies referred :
E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG - Extending Your Home (2001)
06/04/2009 Ramblers Cottage, Aldermaston Rd, Pamber End BDB 69471 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is the erection of a replacement dwelling and double garage.
The proposed dwelling would be significantly larger than the existing cottage and would be sited more prominently on the plot. Its size, height and bulk would, together with the detached double garage, result in an intensification of built form which would not be characteristic of the countryside. It is acknowledged that the quality of the materials would be high but this would not offset the harm caused by the scale of the proposed development.
Policies referred :
E1, E6 and D6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPD Design Guide 2 - Extending Your Home (2008)
21/04/2009 Orchard Croft, Wadwick, Andover BDB 68627 Dismissed
Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse
The development proposed is the replacement of the existing bungalow with a 2-storey house.
The size and scale of the proposal would be significantly greater. It would be generally 2 storeys in height and T-shaped in plan form, with the head of the ‘T’ fronting the lane. It would represent a disproportionate addition to the main element of the house and
14 of 15 overall the proposed development would represent a substantial visual intrusion in the setting. The built form of the hamlet would be interrupted and the sense of seclusion and tranquillity would be seriously jeopardised.
Policies referred :
E1, E6 and D6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan St Mary Bourne Village Design Statement
15 of 15