TH PLANNING COMMITTEE – 20 JANUARY 2015 ITEM 1 APPLICATION NO. 2014/1656 WARD: Llansamlet Location: 11 Troed Y Rhiw, Llansamlet, Swansea, SA7 9SA Proposal: Two storey side/rear extension Applicant: Mr N Frost 1 0 8 8 5 7 2 8 3 4 3 4 7 1 2 1 9 2 3 9 1 2 9 9 3 T R O E D 3 - Y - R H 2 I 1 W 1 1 0 5 6 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 31 33 H E 2 O 2 L H A F Golwg-y- D Y Ddinas 2 1 1 1 1 0 7 M A E 1 S 0 -Y 9 R -H A F 4 4 3 7 2 2 1 a 9 1 b 7 1 a 7 NOT TO SCALE 1 L 6 T 2 E © Crown Copyright and database right 2014:1 Ordnance Survey 100023509. 2 3 TH PLANNING COMMITTEE – 20 JANUARY 2015 ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2014/1656 BACKGROUND INFORMATION POLICIES Policy Policy Description Policy AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008) Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008). Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assessed in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008) SITE HISTORY App No. Proposal 2004/1429 Extension of existing dormer window on front elevation Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 10/08/2004 RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS EIGHT NEIGHBOURING properties were consulted. ONE LETTER OF OBJECTION has been received. Concerns summarised as follows; 1. Overshadowing. 2. Lower ground level. 3. Loss of view due to close proximity of extension. Highways Observations – No objections raised. APPRAISAL This application is called to Area 1 Committee for determination at the request of Councillor Uta Clay to allow members to consider the effects of the extension on nearby residents. A site visit has also been requested. Description The application seeks full consent for a two storey side extension to a detached property located at 11 Troed Y Rhiw, Llansamlet. Original plans have been amended and the agent has confirmed these amended plans should now be considered. Concerns in regards to the original scheme related to the excessive and disproportionate scale proposed in relation to the host dwelling which would also give rise to a detrimental visual impact within the wider street-scene. This would have been exacerbated by the elevated and highly visible siting of the application dwelling. TH PLANNING COMMITTEE – 20 JANUARY 2015 ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2014/1656 In addition, the potential impact to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers predominantly by reason of overbearing physical impact was of particular concern, again due to the position of the application dwelling on an upward gradient in relation to neighbouring dwellings sited to the south-west. Policy Considerations Policy EV1 is concerned with design and seeks to ensure that new development, amongst other criteria, should be appropriate to the local context in terms of scale, form and massing and should sensitively relate to existing development patterns. Furthermore, Policy HC7 aims to ensure extensions are acceptable in terms of their relationship to the host dwelling and do not adversely impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Policy EV2 states that regard should be given to the physical character and topography of the application site and its surroundings whilst Policy AS6 seeks adequate parking arrangements. The considerations associated with Policies EV1, EV2 and HC7 are explained in more detail within the supplementary planning guidance entitled “A Design Guide for Householder Development” (2008). The Main Issues These are considered to be the effect of the proposal on the appearance of the host dwelling by virtue of its design and scale, the visual impact to the wider area and the potential effect to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers by reason of the proposal’s siting, scale and size. Visual Amenity The amended extension would be set back from the front of the property and set down from the ridge line in accordance with the advice contained within the supplementary planning guidance entitled “A Design Guide for Householder Development” (2008). In addition, the reduced proportions are now considered acceptable and the proposed structure would be satisfactorily subservient in relation to the host dwelling. Given the reduced proportions now proposed it is not considered that a significant detrimental visual impact within the wider street-scene will arise by virtue of the proposed scale. Residential Amenity The proposal is shown to be set 0.9 m off the side boundary of the application site at its nearest point and 1.3 m at furthest. It is this side boundary which forms the rear boundary of the properties at 33 and 35 Maes-Yr-Haf. The distance from the rear elevation of 33 Maes-Yr-Haf to the rear boundary is 11.7 m and therefore total overall separation distances of 12.6 m at minimum and 13.0 m would be achieved. A minimum separation distance of 15.0 m is specified within the supplementary guidance for new residential developments adopted in January 2014 entitled “Places to Live” specifically in order to prevent an overbearing impact to neighbouring habitable rooms and gardens. Given this insufficient spacing, also made worse by the siting of the application dwelling on higher ground levels in relation to the affected neighbours, it is considered that the proposal will result in a detrimental overbearing impact. Therefore, in seeking to apply one of the main principles of Policy EV2, the proposal is considered to fail in as much as insufficient account has been taken of the topography of the site in relation to neighbours. Whilst an existing side garage is present at the application site and a single storey outbuilding is sited within the rear garden of 33 Maes-Yr-Haf, the first floor element of the proposal will rise significantly above the height of both these structures. The result will be additional massing and bulk causing a much more oppressive outlook to neighbours particularly due to their location on lower ground levels. TH PLANNING COMMITTEE – 20 JANUARY 2015 ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2014/1656 In addition to the above, Part C.2 of the adopted supplementary planning guidance entitled “A Design Guide for Householder Development” emphasizes that in order to avoid an overbearing impact a two-storey extension should not be positioned very close to the boundary adjacent to the garden of a neighbouring property such that it would unacceptably encroach upon the sense of openness and outlook. The proposal is considered to fail in this respect and, overall, does not accord with part (v) of Policy EV1 which seeks to ensure new development sensitively relates to existing development patterns. Furthermore, Part (iii) of Policy HC7 specifically states that in assessing proposals for residential extensions particular reference to physical impact should be considered in relation to neighbouring properties. Whilst an attempt has been made to address the main issues in relation to potential overbearing impact via the reduced amended scale of the scheme, concerns still exist given the siting of the two storey structure in relation to neighbouring properties to the south, particularly 33 and 35 Maes-Yr-Haf. Although potential for overshadowing and loss of light does not raise significant concern the combination of inadequate separating distances and the elevated siting of the two storey structure will cause a significant overbearing impact to occupiers of adjoining property. Conclusions In conclusion, and having regard to the relevant material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent an unacceptable form of development which fails to accord with Policies EV1, EV2 and HC7 of the adopted City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008) and the supplementary planning guidance documents entitled “A Design Guide for Householder Development” (2008) and "Places to Live: A Residential Design Guide" (2014). RECOMMENDATION REFUSE, for the following reason; 1 The proposed two-storey side extension would have a dominant and significant detrimental overbearing impact on adjoining occupiers at Nos. 33 and 35 Maes-Yr- Haf by virtue of its siting and elevated location on higher ground levels in relation to these properties to the detriment of residential amenity and fails to comply with Policies EV1, EV2 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008) and the supplementary planning guidance entitled "A Design Guide for Householder Development" (2008) and "Places to Live: A Residential Design Guide" (2014). INFORMATIVES 1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, HC7 and AS6. PLANS A.02.4 site location and block plan, A.01.1 existing floor plans, A.01.2 existing elevations dated 31 October 2014, A.02.1 Rev A proposed floor plans, A.02.2 Rev A proposed elevations, A.02.3 Rev A proposed perspectives and sections dated 27 November 2014 2014/1119 Castle TH JANUARY 2015 APPLICATIONWARD: NO. PLANNING COMMITTEE – 20 to Victoria Road ITEM 2 28 29 30 a 4 4 2 4 2 4 0 3 4 - 9 Location: 1st floor 1 York Street, Swansea, SA1 3LZ4 3 1 elevation 3 Proposal: First floor terraced area and fenestration alterations b b u l u l C C Applicant:Flats 1( 1st Monpellanfl) 2(2nd fl ) &5(1st & 2nd fl) SInvestmentsalubrious Chambers Ltd 8 e g a s s a P s u o Multistorey i s r e l r b Hotel o e u l Car Park p b a o S r m t a e h M C T E E R Salubrious T S Place D N I W E L T T I L k r o s r E Y e El C b A m L a h P Sub Sta Salubrious Court C S U O I R Cinema B D A U L O A R S IA K STREET 8.4m R YOR O T C I V 1 2 t o 3 l t e e s i p c t a a p l h a P C B k Swansea Museum r o Y 3 NOT TO SCALE © CrownOrdnance Copyright Survey and database 100023509.