Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:85458}} {{table:85459}} {{table:85460}} {{table:85461}} {{table:85462}} ### Considerations ### Written Representations ### Consultations ### Policy

Officer's Report

The property is an existing semi-detached house situated at the northern end of Ballanawin, backing onto the open space associated with Strang Close.

Proposed here is the extension of the property by building an attached garage with bedroom over. This is provided via a long pitch from the front of the building to a ridge which sits towards the rear of the house, thus looking like a single storey from the front and two storeys at the rear.

This is similar to another application for number 23, PA 04/0598 which was approved by the Planning Committee but an objection was raised by the Commissioners. They have not pursued this to appeal though after discussion with me. My comments in this respect were as follows:

"I have now had the opportunity to visit Ballanawin and can confirm that I could see no two storey extensions to the existing properties therein. I dug out the two refusals relating to number 45 (PA 94/0594) and to Phil Kneen's proposals (PA 97/0208), both of which were refused because of their proximity to and impact on the public footpath. Mike Cain's application (PA 94/0315) was refused because of the over intensive impact on the site and the precedent it would establish elsewhere on the estate.

Mr. Willingham's (PA 04/0598) is different from these in that the proposal looks from the front like a single storey property and the property alongside it is higher. As such, I'm not sure that the conclusions reached in the case of the other three applications would not necessarily be reached in this case. Whilst I agree with the general concern to avoid over-development and establishing a precedent for extensions which would result in the whole estate becoming one big terrace, I think each proposal should be considered on its own merits and in this case I think this is sufficiently different from the others to warrant different consideration."

In this case, the proposal relates to a property tucked well out of the way of the main estate road and alongside a public footpath. Whilst the extended side elevation will be closer to the footpath than is the existing house, it is not as stark as the extension proposed at number 9 and the footpath rises up slightly, reducing the impact of the extension. There is also an existing house in Strang Close which is very close to the footpath.

This is very similar to the proposal at number 23 and is acceptable.

DoT objects to the application on the basis that the remaining driveway is insufficient to accommodate a car which is the case.

I have tried on several occasions to have the application amended to accommodate the views of the DoT, including my last letter dated 29th April, 2005 to which I have not had a response. As such I would recommend refusal on the basis that the application will not make satisfactory provision for vehicles to park on site in front of the garage.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 23.05.2005

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

Whilst there is no objection to the appearance or principle of the extension as shown, once the extension is constructed there would be insufficient space for a vehicle to park on the site in front of the garage. As such, vehicles would either have to park on the highway or overhang the highway, both of which would be detrimental to road safety.

Note: this refusal is without prejudice to a further proposal for an extension which leaves sufficient space between the front of the garage and the highway in which to park an average sized motor car.

Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...