PART A Report of: DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SECTION HEAD Date of Committee: 26 th January 2012 Site address: 19 Cassiobury Park Avenue Reference Number : 11/01079/FULH Description of Development: Erection of single storey side extension (amended plans) Applicant Mr Hussein Date received: 4th November 2011 8 week date (minor): 30th December 2011 Ward: PARK SUMMARY The application seeks full planning permission for a single storey side extension to the property to provide a games room, measuring 6m by 12.7m. Although a substantial extension, it is nevertheless proportionate to the scale of the existing house and the site. Moreover, the extension will be sufficiently subordinate to the house and street scene in accordance with GP1, GP2 and DG3 of the Residential Design Guide Volume 2. The proposed extension would be single storey and set 2.25m from the shared boundary with No17A. The 25 degree line taken from the centre of the side windows of the neighbouring house at 17A Cassiobury Park Avenue would not be infringed and so, in accordance with BRE guidance and Policy GP3 of the Residential Design Guide (RDG) Volume 2, the loss of light and outlook to these windows would be minimal. Notwithstanding this, these windows do not serve as the sole windows to habitable rooms and so any loss of light and outlook would
not be significantly harmful to the amenities of the occupiers. By virtue of the single storey nature of the extension, the 2.25m distance to the side boundary and the 1.8m boundary fence, the side windows of the extension are compliant with GP3 of the RDG Vol 2 and would not result in overlooking to No17A. The proposal is therefore compliant with Policies U1, U2, U3 and H8 of the Watford District Plan. The Development Management Section Head therefore recommends the application be approved as set out in the report. BACKGROUND Site and surroundings The site comprises a substantially-sized two storey detached dwelling and garden in a predominantly residential area. The property, built in the 1920s, features a pitched roof and part brick, part rendered elevations. The original property has been extended to the west side and to the rear with a 4m deep single storey extension rear extension and a single storey side extension to the west side boundary which replaced the previous garage and outbuildings. Vehicular access to the site is provided by two crossovers on Cassiobury Park Avenue. The site is adjacent to No17A to the east which was built in the 1960s and No 21 to the west. The site adjoins Cassiobury Park to the rear. The property is situated within the eastern part of Cassiobury Park Avenue which is characterised by predominantly large, individually designed houses.
The property is not listed and is not located within a Conservation Area. Proposed development The application proposes the erection of a single storey side extension to the east side of the property. The extension would have a width of 6m and a depth of 12.69m with a 0.9m set back from the front of the main house (as shown on the amended plans received on 9 December 2011). The side extension includes a 4m projection to the rear of the building which will adjoin and be level with the existing 4m deep single storey rear extension. The extension is proposed with an eaves height of 2.4m with a pitch roof up to a height of 3.62m of flat roof area. The extension is proposed to be finished with brickwork, roof tiles and white double glazed windows to match the existing house. Planning History 92/00219/FUL Single storey extension at rear of house Conditional planning permission granted 06.08.1992 97/0582/9 Construction of a pitched roof above existing flat roof rear extension Conditional planning permission granted 04.02.1998 08/00613/FUL Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two detached dwellings. Planning permission refused 22.08.2008 Appeal dismissed
10/00454/FULH Erection of single storey rear and side extension, first floor rear extension and open porch supported by timber posts and with roof tiles to front (amended plans) Conditional planning permission granted 06.07.2010 10/00971/LDC Certificate of Lawfulness for the erection of a new front porch Lawful Development Certificate refused 24.11.2010 10/01270/FULH Erection of a new open porch to front. Conditional planning permission granted 09.02.2011 11/00066/FUL Erection of a new part one storey, part two storey partially submerged detached dwelling house to the side of the existing house at No.19 Cassiobury Park Avenue. Planning permission refused 22.03.2011 Appeal dismissed 11/00475/LDC Certificate of Lawfulness for the erection of a detached single storey leisure annexe Lawful Development Certificate refused 04.07.2011 Relevant Policies Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England (East of England Plan) No relevant policies. Hertfordshire Structure Plan Review 1991-2011 The saved policies of the Structure Plan have now largely been superseded by the East of England Plan. There are no policies relevant to this application.
Hertfordshire Waste Local Plan No relevant policies. Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan No relevant policies. Watford District Plan 2000 Policy H7 Primarily Residential Areas Policy H8 Residential Standards Policy U1 Quality of Design Policy U2 Design and Layout of Development Policy U3 Integration of Character Supplementary Planning Guidance Note and Supplementary Planning Document Residential Design Guide Volume 2: Extending Your Home CONSULTATIONS Neighbour consultations Letters were sent to 5 neighbouring properties on Cassiobury Park Avenue. Five letters of objection were received from properties on Cassiobury Park Avenue, Shepherds Road and the Chairman of the Cassiobury Triangle Residents Association. The objections raise the following concerns: 1. Loss of daylight and sunlight to No. 17A Cassiobury Park Avenue adjacent to the east which has large windows on its west side elevation facing No. 19. 2. Full assessment and consideration should be undertaken of the potential
impact to habitable room windows including evaluations under the Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice by P Littlefair. 3. Chasm effect to No. 17A Cassiobury Park Avenue. 4. Loss of privacy to No. 17A by the alignment of the proposed east facing windows of the extension with the side windows of No. 17A. Requested that these windows are amended. Comparative drawing of the two properties provided. 5. Extension is excessive in size being an increase of 50% of the width of the house and 50% increase of the ground floor area. 6. Combined with the existing single storey side extension to the west of the house, the extension would almost fill the full width of the site and constitute overdevelopment detrimental to spacious character of the area. 7. The size of the room is excessive for the purpose stated as a games room. 8. Loss of the views of the park and trees behind No19 would be detrimental to the street scene. 9. Height of the extension is estimated as 5m and this would result in loss of views of park from property opposite which have been enjoyed since 1972. 10. Use of the proposed single storey side extension as a stepping stone for a later first floor extension which would harm light and privacy. 11. Proposed extension is sited on position of swimming pool which has been filled in with rubble and topsoil. Works may result in settlement damage to adjacent properties. 12. More beneficial to the environment to retain garden. The Committee will be advised of any additional representations received after the date this report was written. Statutory consultations None necessary
APPRAISAL In accordance with s.38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Development Plan for Watford comprises: (a) the East of England Plan 2008; (b) the saved policies of the Hertfordshire Structure Plan 1991-2011; (c) the saved policies of the Watford District Plan 2000; (d) the saved policies of the Hertfordshire Waste Local Plan 1995-2005; and (e) the Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan Review 2002-2016. The East of England Plan sets the strategic planning context for decision making in the East of England region. The Structure Plan was adopted in April 1998 and provided strategic level policies for the county, but virtually all of these policies have now been superseded by the East of England Plan. The District Plan was adopted in December 2003 and provides local level policies. The East of England Plan and the Watford District Plan 2000 provide the most up to date development plan policies which, together with any relevant policies from the Waste Local Plan and the Minerals Local Plan, must be afforded considerable weight in decision making on planning applications. The East of England Plan was adopted in May 2008. Although the Localism Act 2011 gives the Government power to revoke all regional strategies, this power has not yet been enacted and consequently the East of England Plan remains part of the Development Plan. Residential Design Guide, Volume 2 Extending Your Home was approved by the Council s Cabinet as a Supplementary Planning Document on 17 November 2008. It provides advice on acceptable, and unacceptable, forms of extensions and alterations to residential properties in the Borough. The guide is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and replaces the Council s existing Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG4 Privacy Guidelines, SPG5 Private Gardens and SPG8 Extensions.
Design and impact on street scene The extension has a width of 6m and this is in proportion to the width of the main house and site. The 6m width proposed is a 50% increase in the width of the original house (being 12m wide) which is in accordance with guidance DG3 (c) of the RDG Volume 2. The extension has been designed to be subordinate to the main house. By virtue of its 0.9m set back from the front of the house, its roof design and modest height (maximum height of 3.62m) it is in accordance with GP1 and DG3 of the RDG Volume 2. The set back of 0.9m is less than the 1m of guidance DG3. However, this is to allow for the side chimney breast and will ensure and acceptable overall design. This set back is sufficient in this instance to ensure subordination and with the 2.25m gap to the side boundary there would be no terracing effect in the street scene pursuant to GP2 and DG3 of the RDG Volume 2. The 2.25m gap to boundary with No. 17A also ensures the spaciousness of the site and area is maintained despite the single storey extensions to both sides of the original house. In design detailing terms the eaves of the proposed extension are set slightly below the horizontal line on the main house dividing the brick finish of the ground floor from the render finish of the first floor. However, because of the 0.9m set back of the side extension, there is sufficient separation between the different elements of the design to ensure that this arrangement will be neither visually prominent nor harmful to the appearance of the extended house. The proposed side extension includes a depth of 4m beyond the rear of the original house and will be adjoined to and sit level with the existing single storey rear extension. This depth to the rear is in excess of the guidance depth of 3.5m
for a single storey rear extension to a detached house as advised in DG1. However, having regard to the scale of the house and site, the depth of existing extensions and the depth of the neighbouring property No. 17A, this is acceptable. The proposed extension combined with the existing west side and rear extensions will result in the floor area of the ground floor being increased considerably from the original house. However, these extensions are designed proportionately to the existing house and the spacious site it occupies, and for the reasons discussed above the addition of the extension now proposed would not be harmful to the appearance of the house. Furthermore the area is characterised by substantial detached houses, many of which have single storey side extensions including some to the full width of the sites. The overall extended house at No. 19 would be in keeping with the scale of buildings in the area and would not be incongruous. It is recognised that the single room within the extension, proposed as a games room, is significant in size. Any use of this space for purposes that are not ancillary to the existing house, including use as an independent residential unit, would require planning permission; nevertheless, for the avoidance of doubt on this point, condition 4 is recommended. Impact on neighbouring properties The side extension would be on the east side of the house adjacent to the boundary shared with No. 17A. The detached 1963 property at No. 17A has four clear glazed windows and an obscure-glazed door on its west side elevation facing No. 19. These windows are positioned at a distance of between 1m and 1.1m from the shared boundary which is marked by a 1.8m high closed boarded fence. Ground levels are approximately level between Nos. 19 and 17A; however, the windows of No. 17A are notably higher than average with sill
heights of 1.26m and 1.6m, as a result of which they provide views over the 1.8m fence resulting in overlooking of the side garden of No. 19. Three of these windows at No. 17A serve a porch and hallway areas and one serves the dining room, although it is noted that this is a secondary window to the dining room, the main window being on the east side of No. 17A. None of these side windows is therefore the sole window to a habitable room and so the loss of light and outlook to these windows can be acceptable without harming the living accommodation of the occupants. It is however asserted that these windows, by virtue of their size, height and southerly orientation, currently afford the property significantly more light to the ground floor than is average for a side elevation. The potential of impact of loss of light has therefore been considered against the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance and the advice in RDG Volume 2 GP3 to assess the significance of the change in light to No. 17A. The porch window, the 2 hall windows and the dining room window have central heights of 1.75m, 2.12m and 1.94m respectively. A 25 degree line is taken from the horizontal of each of the centre points of each window. None of these 25 degree lines would be infringed by proposed extension so that the proposed extension is in accordance with the BRE guidance and RDG GP3 and would not result in unacceptable loss of light or outlook to the windows of No. 17A. The proposed extension extends to a depth of 4m which is beyond the 3.5m guidance of DG1 for a single storey rear extension however this falls substantially short of the depth of No. 17A, so that there would be no loss of light to the rear of No. 17A by this additional depth of extension. The proposed side extension includes two ground floor windows on its east side elevation facing No. 17A. These would be at a distance of 2.25m from the side boundary and would be divided from No. 17A by the 1.8m high close boarded fence. This is compliant with GP3 and it is not considered that these proposed
windows would overlook or reduce the privacy of No. 17A. It has been noted that the higher level of the windows at No. 17A results in a loss of privacy for No. 19 because of overlooking. In this case, therefore, the issue of overlooking is reversed from the normal situation, in so far as the windows of the proposed extension at No. 19 will have a lower level of overlooking towards No. 17A than the existing significant overlooking from the windows of No. 17A towards No. 19 and the resulting low level of privacy currently experienced by No. 19. These side windows are indicated as being obscure glazed in the application; however, taking into account the site circumstances, this provisions will benefit the preservation of the privacy of No. 19 rather than that of No. 17A. By virtue of the low height of the proposed side windows at No. 19, their 2.25m distance from the boundary and the existing 1.8m fence, the guidance of RDG GP3 (c) means that it is not necessary for these windows to be obscure glazed. Consideration of neighbour objections Neighbour Comment 1. Loss of daylight and sunlight to No. 17A Cassiobury Park Avenue adjacent to the East which has large windows on its west side elevation facing No. 19. 2. Full assessment and consideration is undertaken of this potential impact to habitable room windows including evaluations under the Site Officer Response As discussed in report the 25 degree line taken from the centre of these windows would not be infringed and in accordance with BRE guidance and RDG GP3 there would be no loss of light or outlook. This is not necessary. Assessment under the initial BRE test and RDG GP3 is sufficient. Furthermore the windows of concern are not the sole windows serving habitable rooms.
Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice by P Littlefair. 3. Chasm effect to No. 17A Cassiobury Park Avenue 4. Loss of privacy to No. 17A by the alignment of the proposed east facing windows of the extension with the side windows of No. 17A. Requested that these windows are amended. Comparative drawing of the two properties provided. 5. Extension is excessive in size being an increase of 50% of the width of the house and 50% increase of the ground floor area. 6. Combined with the existing single storey side extension to the west of the house, the extension would almost fill the full width of the site and constitute overdevelopment detrimental to spacious character of the area. The relative height of the extension to the windows of No. 17A maintains sufficient outlook for the windows. As discussed in report, the windows proposed are at ground floor level, 2.25m from the boundary and adjacent to a 1.8m fence. Despite their alignment, in accordance with RDG GP3 there would not be overlooking to No. 17A. As discussed in the report the increase in width of 50% is compliant with RDG DG3. The total of extensions to the property is large but they are subordinate in design and proportionate to the scale of the house, the site and the scale of buildings in the street scene. As discussed in the total width of the extended house is not excessive with regard to its original width and would be appropriate considering the proportions of houses and extensions seen in the street scene. The 2.25m gap to the side boundary ensures space between buildings is maintained.
7. The size of the room is excessive for the purpose stated as a games room 8. Loss of the views of the park and trees behind No. 19 would be detrimental to the street scene 9. Height of the extension is estimated as 5m and this would result in loss of views of park from property opposite which have been enjoyed since 1972 10. Use of the proposed single storey side extension as a stepping stone for a later first floor extension which would harm light and privacy 11. Proposed extension is sited on position of swimming pool which has been filled in with rubble and topsoil. Works may result in settlement damage to adjacent properties. This is not a planning concern provided the use is ancillary to the use of the residential property. Condition 4 is recommended to safeguard this. There are no rights to a view under planning legislation. A 2.25m gap is, however, maintained to the side boundary which will ensure space between buildings pursuant to RDG GP3. The height has been estimated incorrectly. The maximum height is 3.62m. Notwithstanding this there is no right to a view under planning legislation, space between the buildings is maintained by the 2.25m gap to the side boundary Each scheme is considered on its own merits. Possible future developments are not a consideration for this application. Structural soundness of the development, if implemented, is a Building Control matter. Potential or actual damage to neighbouring properties is a civil matter and not a planning consideration.
12. More beneficial to the environment to retain garden Substantial rear garden and front gardens are maintained as well as a 2.25m gap to the side boundary. The amenity of the immediate environment would not be harmed. It is not considered that the proposed development would result in harm to the global environment. Conclusion The proposed single storey side extension, by virtue of its size relative to the house and site, its 0.9m set back from the front elevation and 2.25m set in from the side boundary, would be a suitable and subordinate addition to the property and street scene in accordance with guidance with GP1, GP2, DG1 and DG3, of the Residential Design Guide Volume 2 and Policies U1, U2, U3 and H8 of the Watford District Plan 2000. By virtue of its single storey nature, its relative position lower than the windows of No. 17A and its 2.25m distance to the side boundary, the proposed extension would not result in loss of light or privacy of the neighbouring property and is in accordance with BRE guidance and the guidance in GP3 of the Residential Design Guide Volume 2 and Policies U2 and H8 of the Watford District Plan 2000. The application is therefore recommended for approval. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS The Local Planning Authority is justified in interfering with the applicant s Human Rights in order to alleviate any adverse effect on adjoining properties and their occupiers and on general public amenity. With regard to any infringement of third
party Human Rights, these are not considered to be of such a nature and degree as to override the Human Rights of the applicant and therefore warrant refusal of planning permission. RECOMMENDATION That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. Construction of the development hereby permitted shall not take place before 8am or after 6pm Mondays to Fridays, before 8am or after 1pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and Public Holidays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities and quiet enjoyment of neighbouring properties during the time that the development is being constructed, pursuant to Policy SE22 of the Watford District Plan 2000. 3. All the external surfaces shall be finished in materials to match the colour, texture and style of the existing building. In the event of matching materials not being available, details of any alternative materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development and the development shall only
be carried out in accordance with any alternative details approved by this condition. Reason: To ensure that the development applies high quality materials that respond to the buildings context and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with the provision of PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development and the requirements of Polices U1, U2and U3 of the Watford District Plan 2000. 4. The proposed extension shall not be used otherwise than as part of the existing dwelling at 19 Cassiobury Park Avenue and, in particular, it shall not be used independently from the existing dwelling house for any purpose whatsoever. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers, in accordance with U1 and U3 of the Watford District Plan 2000. Informatives: 1. The Local Planning Authority s reasons for granting planning permission in this case are as follows: The development is in accordance with the policies of the Development Plan (namely the saved policies of the Watford District Plan 2000 and the saved policies of the Hertfordshire Structure Plan): and the Development is considered to comply with the provisions of the appropriate Supplementary Planning Guidance (setting out acceptable standards for new development) adopted by the Council following public consultation; and, having regard to the site s location, the character of the surrounding area, the impact upon surrounding buildings and appearance of the building, no material harm would result from the development being
carried out. The proposed single storey side extension by virtue of its size relative to the house and site, its 0.9m set back from the front elevation and 2.25m set in from the side boundary would be a suitable and subordinate addition to the property and street scene in accordance with guidance with GP1, GP2, DG1 and DG3, of the Residential Design Guide Volume 2 and policies U1, U2, U3 and H8 of the Watford District Plan 2000. By virtue of its single storey nature, its relative position lower than the windows of No. 17A and its 2.25m distance from the side boundary the proposed extension would not result in loss of light or privacy of the neighbouring property and is in accordance with BRE guidance and guidance in GP3 of the Residential Design Guide Volume 2 and Policies U2 and H8 of the Watford District Plan 2000. 2. In reaching its decision on this application the Council has had regard to the following policies in the Watford District Plan 2000 and Residential Design Guide (Extending Your Home) Adopted November 2008: H7 Primarily residential Areas H8 Residential Standards U1 Quality of Design U2 Design and Layout of Development U3 Integration of Character GP1 Harmony with the Host Building GP2 Respecting the Streetscene GP3 Neighbourliness DG1 Single Storey Rear Extensions DG3 Single Storey Side Extensions Drawing Numbers 5114-106 5114-105 Rev D
Case Officer: Alice Reade Email: alice.reade@watford.gov.uk Tel: 01923 278279