Loading document...
The application site is 11 Whitebridge Avenue, Ramsey, a single storey detached bungalow which is located on the eastern side of Whitebridge Avenue. The neighbouring property "Tanga" which is a two storey property is located to the northeast of the site and the neighbouring property "Cooil Rhennie" which is a single storey detached bungalow is to the southeast of the application site.
The boundary treatment which runs along the northern boundary of the site and is shared with 10 Whitebridge Avenue consists of a 1.5 /2 metre high hedgerow. The southern boundary shared with the neighbouring property "Cooil Rhennie" comprises a 2.5/3 metre high hedgerow which runs from the existing side flat roofed extension to the rear of the garden (photo 4).
The dwelling has been zoned under the Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998 as being within an area of predominately residential; the site is not within the Ramsey Conservation Area.
The application proposes alterations and erection of extensions to provide additional living accommodation. The proposal includes:-
The Ramsey Commissioners:- No objection
Highways Division no objection subject to the imposition of the following conditions:- Three no. off street parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the dwelling.
The application seeks to increase an existing dwelling from a two bedroom dwelling to a four bedroom dwelling plus games room which could potentially be used as a fifth bedroom.
11.04 - The workshop shall remain ancillary to the dwelling. The Planning Authority has not received any private representations objecting to the application.*
Chief Fire Officer:- Advise applicant to consult with the Fire Safety Department with regard to the means of escape from games room located on first floor.
The owners/occupiers of 10 Whitebridge Avenue, have objected to the amended planning application, which can be summarised as the garage extension at the front is close to the boundary and will result in loss of light and over intensive use of the land and the rear conservatory may be visible from their lounge impacting on their enjoyment of their property.
The owners/occupiers of 10 Whitebridge Avenue also objected to the initial application which can be summarised as; the proposal is a two storey building; doubling in size; the proposals would lead to loss of views, light and sunshine, un-neighbourly development, appearance and overbearing.
The owners/occupiers of Cooil Rhennie, Whitebridge Avenue also objected to the initial application which can be summarised as; the proposal would have the scale and proportions of a large two storey house, over intensive use of the site, out of character, the development would be un-neighbourly and unsympathetic, intrusion on privacy due to balcony and loss of light to north elevation of dwelling.
Material Planning issues which need to be considered with this application include:-
The submitted amended plans certainly reduce the height and scale of the proposal which in turn reduce possible adverse impacts to the detriment of the neighbouring residents, however it must be considered whether the amended plans still possibly cause adverse impacts upon the neighbouring residential amenity.
I consider the property most affected by the proposal would be 10 Whitebridge Avenue. As can be seen within photograph 1 and 2, the neighbouring property has two windows and a single garage door at ground floor level along the southwest elevation, which is slightly orientated towards 11 Whitebridge Avenue. I consider the proposed single storey flat roof garage extension which runs along the northeast elevation to have the most possible impact upon the neighbouring property and particularly the window closest to the boundary along the southwest elevation. This window provides an outlook for the room which also has a rear patio door, with access into the rear garden (photo 3). Therefore the front window is not the only window to that room and is not the primary window. The window presently would not get a significant amount of light due to the orientation of the property and the boundary treatment which consists of a 1.5 metre hedgerow, and I therefore consider the proposed garage would not have a significantly adverse impact on the neighbours' residential amenity to warrant a refusal on these grounds.
With regard to the rear conservatory, due to the distance of 6.5 metres from the boundary with 10 Whitebridge Avenue and the boundary treatment, I am of the opinion that the proposal would not cause any detrimental impact on the neighbouring (Nr 10) residential amenity (overlooking, loss of light and/or overbearing impact) to warrant a refusal on these grounds.
The rear glazed roof unit to the rear elevation gives the facility for the applicant to benefit from more light and views to the proposed master bedroom. The unit in part follows the roof line. The unit would not be visible from either of the neighbouring properties or from the street scene. The unit would also not introduce any possible adverse impacts through overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.
I consider the amended proposals would have little or no impact, upon the neighbouring property "Cooil Rhennie" as the major proposals are located on the northern and eastern elevation of Nr 11 and also therefore not affecting "Cooil Rhennie".
The initial scheme proposed major alterations to the size and height of the dwelling, which would have had appeared significantly different to the existing bungalows along the street scene. The amended plans however retain the majority the size and scale of the existing property and I therefore consider from this aspect that the proposal is acceptable.
The main additions to the front elevation would be the dormer window, porch and the garage extension. However I do not consider the proposals will have any adverse visual impacts upon the street scene or to the property itself.
For these reasons the proposals would seem appropriate in this location and therefore my recommendation is for an approval.
I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party states: Chief Fire Officer
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 09.05.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings 040903-01 and 040903-02 REV A all received on 30th October 2006 and 16th March 2007.
C 3. The external finishes of the extension must match those of the existing building in all respects.
C 4. In the interests of road safety three off street parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the dwelling.
C 5. The proposed garage/workshop may be used only in association with 11 Whitebridge Avenue and for purposes ancillary to the use of 11 Whitebridge Avenue as a single dwelling house and for no commercial purposes.
N 1. The Applicant is recommended to consult with the Fire Safety Department with regard to the means of escape from games room located on first floor.
Decision Made : Approve Committee Meeting Date : 31/05/07
1 June 2007 06/01879/B Page 5 of 5
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown