|
|
APPLICATION NO. |
|
|
|
SITE |
2 Bertie Road, Cumnor, Oxford, OX2 9PS |
|
|
PARISH |
CUMNOR |
|
|
PROPOSAL |
Demolition of attached garage and erection of two storey extension on the same footprint. Erection of attached double garage at front of dwelling. Note, this forms an amendment to application P18/V0136/HH which is currently under construction, and a subsequent application P21/V1867/HH which was withdrawn. |
|
|
WARD MEMBER(S) |
Alison Jenner Judy Roberts |
|
|
APPLICANT |
Adam Dixon-Chapman |
|
|
OFFICER |
Lewis Dixey |
|
|
RECOMMENDATION |
|
|
Planning Permission |
|
|
1. TL1 - Time limit - Full Application (Full) 2. Approved plans *
Pre-Commencement 3. LS4 – Method Statement for Hedge Protection (Full)
Compliance Conditions: 4. LS5[I] - Retain Existing Hedgerow (Full) 5. MC3 - Materials in Accordance with Applicaton(Full) 6. RE11 – Restrict Garage Accommodation (Full)
|
|
1.0 |
INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL |
|
|
1.1 |
The application comes to committee having been called in by local ward member, Judy Roberts. Cumnor Parish Council also object to the proposal
|
|
|
1.2 |
The property is a detached dwelling located within an established residential area, accessed from Cumnor Hill. There are neighbouring dwellings to the north (no.2A Bertie Road) and south (no.48 Oxford Road) with highway access obtained at the front of the site. The site is bounded along the western side, adjacent to the highway, by a substantial evergreen hedge approximately 3m in height, separated midway by a 3m wide access The existing walls of the house are traditional red brick with horizontal cladding and there is a tiled roof.
|
|
|
1.3 |
Planning permission has previously been granted, on 13 March 2018, for a single storey rear extension and first floor side extension over the existing attached, flat roof double garage. This application is seeking permission for an identical single storey rear extension and two storey side extension on the footprint of the existing garages, but with the addition of an attached double garage at front of the dwelling
|
|
|
1.4 |
The principle of extending above the existing garages on the same footprint and adding a single storey rear extension has already been accepted by the granting of the previous planning permission P18/V0136/HH. Therefore, the main part of the assessment, and reason for the committee call-in, is focused on the proposed single-storey front extension to add a double garage.
|
|
|
1.5 |
The garage would project 6.5m from the front elevation with a shallow dual pitched, hipped roof with an eave height of 2.5m and a ridge of 3.7m. The total number of bedrooms would be five and three parking spaces have been demonstrated within the frontage in addition to the proposed double garage space.
|
|
|
1.6 |
The existing 3m-high hedge will be retained on the road frontage. There is a 2m high close boarded fence on the north boundary, and a lower deciduous hedgerow on the roadside boundary of the neighbour to the north, no.2A.
|
|
|
1.7 |
A site location plan is provided below and the plans are attached at Appendix 1.
|
|
|
2.0 |
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS |
||||||||
|
2.1 |
|
|
3.0 |
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY |
|
3.1 |
P21/V1867/HH - Withdrawn (31/08/2021) Demolition of attached garages and erection of two storey extension on the same footprint. Erection of detached double garage. Note, this forms an amendment to application P18/V0136/HH which is currently under construction (Relocation of proposed garage as shown on drawings 21.051 2b and 21.051 7b received 10 August 2021).
P18/V0136/HH - Approved (13/03/2018) Single storey rear extension. First floor side extension over existing garages. Infill of canopy to front elevation. Planning Application History
|
|
4.0 |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT |
|
4.1 |
Householder development does not fall within the defined scope for potential EIA development |
|
5.0 |
MAIN ISSUES |
|
5.1 |
The main relevant planning considerations are the following:
· Principle of development · Character and appearance · Residential amenity · Access and parking
|
|
5.2 |
Principle of development The principle of extending the property up to two storeys on the footprint of the original garages, and of a single-storey extension at the rear, has already been established through the granting of planning permission under reference P18/V0136/HH. The proposed single storey rear and two storey side extensions are identical in size and shape to the extensions approved in 2018. The main change seen in this revised scheme would be to add a new double garage projecting off the northern side of the front elevation. A rear garden of approximately 230 sq.m would remain with the extensions added. This comfortably exceeds the adopted standard of 100 sq.m. Therefore, the works are not considered to amount to overdevelopment of the site. On this basis, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to the details. These will be considered below
|
|
5.3 |
Character and appearance Policy CP37 of LPP1 (Reviewed) and policy DBC1 of the Cumnor Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) seeks to ensure high quality design and respect for the key positive characteristics of the locality of a development. Policy DBC1 lists the retention of existing mature hedgerows as being important. The Design Guide SPD also seeks to ensure that residential extensions are well designed and appropriate for their location. In terms of the impact on the character of the area, there are no other garages located in the front gardens of the neighbouring properties on Bertie Road. As members are aware, each application must be assessed on its own merits and a judgment must be made as to whether any harm identified would warrant refusal of the application.
|
|
5.4 |
The Parish Council raises concern over the proposed garage encroaching beyond the building line of Bertie Road. Officers have carefully assessed the impact of the development on the street scene. A substantial existing mature hedge is present on the western front boundary measuring approximately 3 metres in height, and there is a 2m high fence along the northern side. These will act to screen the visual impact of the proposed garage. Views from the south and west will be effectively blocked by the hedge. Views from the north, which are obtained from a relatively narrow angle once the observer is in front of no.2A,will be restricted to approximately 500mm of the side wall, and then the shallow hipped roof above. Officers consider the building will therefore be mostly screened from view, to the extent that its impact on the character and appearance of the area will not be so great as to warrant refusal of the application.
|
|
5.5 |
Key to this assessment is the presence of the hedge. The council’s forestry officer has been consulted and has confirmed that, due to the existing ground conditions being driveway, the garage can be constructed without causing harm to the hedge. In order to ensure that the front hedge is retained and properly maintained in perpetuity a condition has been imposed. A condition has also been proposed requiring a method statement with details of the foundation construction to ensure that the roots of the front hedge are not damaged.
|
|
5.6 |
It should be noted that if future applications are submitted for other properties, these will be decided on their own merits and are dependent on what type of landscaping or other screening exists and the height and the design of the proposed building.
|
|
5.7 |
The design of all of the proposed extensions will match the design and proportions of the main house. The neighbour’s concerns are noted, but officers consider that, given the character and appearance of the area, the use of horizontal cladding to the first floor and render to the ground floor is considered acceptable and in-keeping with the locality. Overall, officers are of the opinion that the proposal would not harm the visual amenity of the area and complies with policy CP37 of LPP1 (Reviewed) and policy DCB1 of CNP.
|
|
5.8 |
Residential amenity Policy DP23 of LPP2 seeks to protect neighbours’ amenities from harm due to development. One letter from a neighbour has been submitted and whilst not objecting to the new garage, they have expressed a preference for materials and that no upper floor windows should be permitted on the southern elevation.
|
|
5.9 |
The distance between the proposed first floor extension and neighbouring dwellings to the south is over 40m. This is enough to prevent any impact in terms of overshadowing or dominance. Permitted development rights would allow upper floor windows to be added to the southern elevation in the future, but the rights restrict such windows to be obscure glazed with opening elements at least 1.7m above the internal floor level to prevent loss of privacy. The neighbour to the north, no.2A, is set at an angle to No.2 and in view of this, and the relatively low height of both the proposed rear extension and the proposed garage, it is not considered that the extensions will have an adverse impact on this dwelling.
|
|
5.10 |
Taking into account the orientation of the property and its relationship with the surrounding dwellings, officers do not consider that the proposals would harm the amenities of any of the neighbouring properties and would comply with policy DP23 of LPP2.
|
|
5.11 |
Access and parking Policies CP35 and CP37 of LPP1 (Reviewed), policy DP16 of LPP2, and policy TI1 of CNP aim to protect highway safety and ensure sustainable transport options. The proposal would convert the existing garages and increase the number of bedrooms to five. The county highways officer has been consulted and raises no objection subject to the retention of the new garage accommodation being retained, which has been conditioned.
|
|
5.12 |
Three parking spaces have been shown on the block plans together with the double garage. The highways officer has noted that the garage could only be used efficiently by one vehicle. However, the site could still comfortably accommodate enough parking spaces to standard for the size of the enlarged dwelling in this relatively sustainable location. The existing access would remain and officers do not consider the works to have an adverse impact on
highway safety. Therefore, the proposal accords with relevant development plan policies. |
|
6.0 |
CONCLUSION |
|
6.1 |
In the absence of any negative weight that can be attached to the proposal in the form of identified harm from any material consideration, officers consider the outcome of the planning balance is that the proposal complies with the provisions of the development plan, in particular policy CP37, DP16 and DP23 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Plan 2031, and policies DCB1 and TI1 of the Cumnor Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal is also considered to comply with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and the council’s adopted Design Guide SPD 2015 |
|
|
The following planning policies have been taken into account:
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (Reviewed) policies; |
|
|
CP35 - Promoting Public Transport, Cycling and Walking CP37 - Design and Local Distinctiveness CP44 - Landscape
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2 policies; DP16 - Access DP23 - Impact of Development on Amenity
Cumnor Neighbourhood Plan 2021 (CNP) policies:
DCB1 - General Design Principles in the Parish TI1 – Sustainable Transport
|
|
|
National Planning Policy Framework 2019
National Planning Practice Guidance 2014 – 2019
Vale of White Horse Design Guide SPD 2015
Equalities Act 2010 The proposal has been assessed against section 149 of the Equalities Act. It is considered that no identified group will suffer discrimination as a result of this proposal
Human Rights Act, 1998 The application has been assessed against Schedule 1, Part 1, Article 8, and against Schedule 1, Part 2, Article 1 of the Human Rights Act, 1998. The harm to individuals has been balanced against the public interest and the officer recommendation is considered to be proportionate.
Author: Lewis Dixey Email: lewis.dixey@southandvale.gov.uk Telephone: 01235 422600 |