17 Windmill Road, Brentford PDF 250 KB

PLANNING COMMITTEE
26 March 2015
natalie.lynch@hounslow.gov.uk
References:
P/2014/5310
01217/17/P7
Site:
17 Windmill Road, Brentford TW8 0QD
The application has been referred by Isleworth and Brentford Area Forum to
Planning Committee for determination.
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
This is a retrospective planning application for the erection of a part two
storey, part single storey rear extension to the basement and ground floor
flats and the erection of a front porch.
1.2
The proposal, whilst not strictly in accordance with the Residential
Extension Guidelines (REGs), would not result in any harm to neighbouring
residents living conditions or to the character and appearance of the St.
Paul’s Conservation Area. Therefore, approval is recommended.
1.3
The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
2.0
SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1
The site contains a four storey, semi-detached property (see figure 2). The
property is split into four flats, with a flat on each floor. This application
relates to the basement and ground floor flats. The property is yellow
London Stock brick built and there is a private access road to the north of
the site which provides access to the rear and runs adjacent to the railway
lines (see figure 1).
2.2
The site currently slopes towards the rear of the site and the basement level
is exposed at the rear.
2.3
The attached neighbouring property is 15 Windmill Road which is also split
into four flats and has an existing single storey rear extension which extends
to a depth of 5.4m.
2.4
The site is located within the St. Paul’s Conservation Area.
Figure 1 – site location plan
3.0
HISTORY
3.1
01217/17/P1
Demolition of existing outbuilding and erection of an
extension to the basement flat, with the erection of a
new stairwell to the street and replacement of rear
window
Granted – 04 April 2014
3.2
01217/17/P2
Erection of an additional storey to rear extension of
ground floor flat
Granted – 14 November 2014
Relevant enforcement history
3.3
BWR/2014/00712
Enforcement
investigation
into
the
approved
extensions not being built in accordance with the
approved plans. A site visit by officers confirmed that
the extension had been built larger than approved and
so this planning application has been submitted in an
attempt to rectify the breach of planning control.
Relevant history
Site address – 54&55 Hamilton Road (land to the rear of no. 17 Windmill
Road formed part of this development site)
3.2
00546/B/P3
Demoltion of existing houses and associated
outbuildings and erection of 2x three bedroom units
and 4x four bedroom units with associated car
parking and landscaping
Refused – 21 March 2013
Reasons:
1. The proposal through poor design, mass and
layout and through the infilling of the existing
gap to the rear of the street fails to the
existing pattern of development and general
streetscene and townscape. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Sections 7 of the
National Planning Policy Framework
(Requiring Good Design ); Policies ENVB.1.1 (New Development), ENV-B.2.2
(Conservation Areas), ENV-N.2.7 (Trees and
Community Woodlands) of the London
Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development
Plan (UDP) (December 2003); Policies 7.4
(Local Character) and 7.6 (Architecture) of
the London Plan 2011; and UDP
Supplementary Planning Guidance (February
1997).
2. The proposal would, by reason of its
excessive massing, bulk and scale as well as
its siting, layout and detailed design, and
infilling of gaps in the streetscene, be out of
keeping with the existing pattern of
development and general streetscene and
townscape, failing to enhance the character
and appearance of the St Paul's
Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Sections 7 and 12 of the National
Planning Policy Framework (Requiring Good
Design, Conserving and Enhancing the
Historic Environment ) Policies ENV-B.1.1
(New Development), ENV-B.2.2
(Conservation Areas), ENV-N.2.7 (Trees and
Community Woodlands) of the London
Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development
Plan (UDP) (December 2003); Policies 7.4
(Local Character) and 7.6 (Architecture) of
the London Plan 2011; and UDP
Supplementary Planning Guidance (February
1997).
3. Given the failings of the scheme in regard to
design and its harm to the character and
appearance of the conservation area, the
proposal represents an unacceptable loss of
green space and trees, contrary to Section
11 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (Conserving and Enhancing the
Natural Environment; Policies ENV-B.2.2
(Conservation Areas), ENV-N.2.7 (Trees and
Community Woodlands of the London
Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development
Plan (UDP) (December 2003); Policies 7.19
(Biodiversity and Access to Nature), 7.21
(Trees and Woodlands), 7.4 (Local
Character) and 7.6 (Architecture) of the
London Plan 2011; and UDP Supplementary
Planning Guidance (February 1997).
Appeal refs APP/F5540/A/13/2196514&E/13/2196513
Appeals dismissed – 04 September 2013
4.0
DETAILS
4.1
The works to construct the extensions approved in April and November
2014 have been completed, albeit slightly larger than what was approved.
This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of
a part two storey, part single storey rear extension to the basement and
ground floor flats and the construction of a front porch.
4.2
At basement level the extension extends the full width of the property at
7.3m and would project 4.27m deep (0.27m deeper than previously
approved). The extension would measure 3.0m high (0.1m higher than
previously approved) to the top of the single storey element and 6.5m high
(0.164m higher than previously approved) to the top of the two storey
element. A 0.3m high parapet would be included on both sides. The two
storey element is set in 3.4m (0.24m further than previously approved) from
the shared boundary with 15 Windmill Road.
4.3
The extension has been finished in yellow London Stock bricks to match
those used in the main house (see figure 2). Two windows and a set of bifold doors have been inserted into the rear elevation and two windows into
the side elevation
4.4
The existing coal cellar has been converted into a 5.3sqm porch with the
front door to the basement flat being re-positioned towards the front of the
property. The front porch does not extend beyond the original footprint of
the property.
Figure 2 – rear elevation as built
5.0
CONSULTATIONS
5.1
14 neighbouring residents were notified by 14 January 2015. A site notice
was posted on 17 January 2015 and a press notice was published on 23
January 2015. Six objections were received, commenting as follows.
Comment
Response
Impact on neighbours through loss
of light, views and outlook
The extension would not result in
an unacceptable level of harm to
neighbouring residents’ through
loss of light and outlook.
The extension is higher than shown
on
the
plans
and
too
big/disproportionate to the property
The proposed plans show the
extension as built. The extension
is considered to be of a size and
scale that is proportionate to the
main property.
The design and appearance of the
extension is contrary to the
Conservation Area
The extension has been finished
in yellow London Stock bricks to
match those used in the main
property.
The proposal results in obtrusive
development
The extension is not considered
to be obtrusive or out of keeping
with the surrounding area.
Loss of trees
Trees to the rear of the site have
been removed and this does not
form part of this application. The
construction of the extension has
not resulted in the loss of trees.
The brick wall adjacent to the
railway line has been demolished
An officer’s site visit confirms that
the a new replacement brick wall
is being built.
5.2
The application was placed on the Pending Decisions List dated 06 – 13
February 2015 (Week 6) and there was a request for the application to be
called into Isleworth and Brentford Area Forum.
5.3
The application was discussed by the Isleworth and Brentford Area Forum
on 05 March 2015. It was agreed that the application should be deferred to
Planning Committee for determination.
6.0
POLICY
Determining applications for full or outline planning permission
6.1
The determination must be made in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local finance
considerations must also be assessed.
The National Planning Policy Framework
6.2
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force on 27
March 2012, and from April 2014 National Planning Practice Guidance
(NPPG) in the form of an online guidance resource to support the NPPF
came into effect. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers that, where
pertinent, the NPPF and NPPG are material considerations and as such, will
be taken into account in decision-making as appropriate.
The Development Plan
6.4
The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Council's Unitary
Development Plan (other than those policies that are wholly inconsistent
with the National Planning Policy Framework), Employment Development
Plan Document, Brentford Area Action Plan and the London Plan 2011 as
amended by the Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan 2013
and the Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) 2015.
Emerging new Development Plan Documents
6.5
There are two emerging new Development Plan Documents that are all now
at an advanced stage of preparation.
On the 20th August 2014 the Borough Council submitted the Local Plan
to the Secretary of State for examination. When adopted this will replace
the Council’s three existing DPDs and amend the Proposals Map. As part
of this examination, objections to the Plan are being considered before a
Planning Inspector at a hearing that commenced on 10 February 2015.
On the 31st July the Borough Council together with five partner
authorities submitted a jointly prepared West London Waste Plan to the
Secretary of State for examination. When adopted this will manage the land
use implications of waste planning.
6.6
The Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers that these DPDs are capable
of being regarded as material considerations in planning decisions which
will be taken into account as appropriate; each policy will gain more weight
as it progresses through the examination processes towards adoption.
Determining applications in a conservation area
6.3
In considering whether to grant planning permission with respect to any
buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid
to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of
the conservation area.
6.4
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies
6.5
6.6
ENV-B.1.1
New Development
H.6.4
Extensions and Alterations
Relevant Local Plan Policies
CC1
Context and Character
CC2
Urban Design and Architecture
CC4
Heritage
SC7
Residential Extensions and Alterations
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Residential Extension Guidelines
Section 1.0
Single Storey Rear Extensions & Conservatories
Section 2.0
Two Storey Rear & First Floor Rear Extensions
Section 6.0
Front Extensions & Porches
Section 8.0
Development in Conservation Areas
7.0
PLANNING ISSUES
7.1
The main planning issues to consider are:
The principle of the development
The impact of the proposal on adjoining land uses and neighbouring
properties
The impact upon the character and appearance of the site and the
surrounding area
The principle of the development
7.2
Policy ENV-B.1.1 (New Development) states that new development should
relate well to its site and scale, nature, height, massing, character and use
of the adjacent townscape. It should respect the proportions of existing
neighbouring buildings where there are strong uniform design
characteristics, use satisfactory materials and enhance the townscape value
of an area.
7.3
Policy ENV-B.2.2 of the UDP says that development should preserve or
enhance the appearance and character of a conservation area. There is a
presumption in favour of retention of buildings that make a positive
contribution to the character of the area.
7.4
Policy H.6.4 of the UDP states that extensions should complement the
original building, harmonise with adjoining properties and maintain the
general street scene. The policy also states that extensions should have
balance and proportion and not result in overdevelopment of the site in
terms of mass or density and must fit in with the shape of the property.
7.5
The Residential Extension Guidelines were introduced to ensure that a
balance is struck between protecting neighbours’ interests, keeping a good
quality and attractive street scene and meeting applicants’ reasonable
expectations for increased accommodation.
7.6
Section 1.0 states that for extensions, to avoid any loss of light to
neighbouring properties, the maximum depth should not exceed 3.65
metres for a semi-detached property and there should be no windows in any
of the side elevations. Section 2.0 states that first floor rear extensions
should include set backs and set ins (e.g. 3m) from the boundaries. Section
6.0 states that a front extension should be set back from the front wall of the
house and the roof design, windows and finishing materials should match
the original house. There should be no side windows. Where the front
extension extends sideways or linked to a side extension, planning
permission will normally be refused.
7.7
Planning permission has previously been granted for the erection of a single
storey rear extension and first floor rear extension (see paras 3.1 and 3.2
above). The extension has been built larger than approved and as such a
full assessment must be made as to the additional harm to neighbouring
residents’ living conditions and to the character and appearance of the St.
Paul’s Conservation Area.
7.8
The front porch would be contained within the original footprint of the
building, infilling an existing coal cellar. The front porch would have a low
visibility from the surrounding area and would be considered to be in
accordance with intention of the Residential Extension Guidelines and
would be considered acceptable in principle.
The impact of the proposal on adjoining land uses and neighbouring
properties
7.9
The extension extends 4.27m beyond the rear wall of the property, contrary
to the Residential Extension Guidelines which recommends a maximum
depth of 3.65m for a semi-detached property. However, this is only 0.27m
deeper than what was approved in the previous application. The attached
neighbouring property, 15 Windmill Road has an existing single storey rear
extension which extends beyond the extension to a depth of 5.4m.
Therefore, the depth of the extension does not result in any harm to this
neighbouring property.
7.10
The two storey element is set in 3.4m from the boundary and positioned to
the north of this neighbouring property. Although there has been a slight
increase in the height by 0.164m than previously approved, the set in from
the boundary has been increased by an additional 0.24m. The nearest
window in the neighbouring property is positioned 5m away from the two
storey element of the extension. Given that the separating distance has
been increased from what was previously approved and the positioning of
the extension to the north of this neighbouring property, the extension does
not result in any harm to this neighbouring property through loss of light or
outlook.
7.11
On the other side, the site adjoins an access road and railway lines. Two
new windows have been inserted into this side elevation. The extension
does not result in any harm to this adjoining land use through loss of light or
overlooking.
7.12
The existing coal cellar has created a front porch to the basement flat. The
front porch is contained within the existing footprint of the building and as
such results in no harm to the neighbouring property through loss of light or
outlook.
The impact upon the character and appearance of the site and the
surrounding area
7.13
The size and scale of the part two storey, part single storey rear extension is
considered to be proportionate to the main property with an acceptable
amount of rear garden space remaining open and undeveloped. The porch
has been contained within the existing footprint of the building and as such
has a minimal impact on the character and appearance of the street scene
and the surrounding area.
7.14
The part two storey, part single storey rear extension and porch has been
finished in yellow London Stock bricks to match those used in the main
property. The extension and porch is considered to be a sympathetic
addition that continues to preserve and enhance the St. Paul’s Conservation
Area.
8.0
LOCAL FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS
8.1
Some new developments granted planning permission on or after 1 st April
2012 will be liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to the Mayor
of London with respect to the funding of Crossrail. This is at the rate of £35
per m² of new floor space.
8.2
This proposal is not liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy as the
gross internal floor area is below the threshold of 100sqm.
9.0
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS
9.1
The Council has to give due regard to its Equalities Duties and in particular
with respect to its duties arising pursuant to the Equality Act 2010, section
149. It is considered that there will be no specific implications with regard to
the Council’s duty in respect of its equalities duties and that if approving or
refusing this proposal the Council will be acting in compliance with its duties.
10.0
CONCLUSION
10.1
The proposal, whilst not strictly in accordance with the Residential
Extension Guidelines, would not result in any harm to neighbouring
residents’ living conditions or to the character and appearance of the St.
Paul’s Conservation Area. Therefore, approval is recommended.
11.0
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
That planning permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
Conditions:
1
B5
Implementation
2
D2
No Additional Glazed Openings
‘side walls’
Informatives:
1
Granted, no amendments or pre-app
To assist applicants, the London Borough of Hounslow has produced
planning policies and written guidance, all of which is available on the
Council’s website and which has been followed in this instance. The
decision was made in a timely manner.
2
Some new developments granted planning permission on or after 1st
April 2012 will be liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to the
Mayor of London with respect to the funding of Crossrail. This is at the
rate of £35 per sq.m of new floor space. For further information please
contact the CIL team on 020 8583 4898/4895. For more information on
CIL please visit our web page:
http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/environment_and_planning/planning.h
tm
or the planning portal web page:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/wps/portal
3
Thames Water requests that the Applicant should incorporate within their
proposal, protection to the property by installing for example, a nonreturn valve or other suitable device to avoid the risk of backflow at a
later date, on the assumption that the sewerage network may surcharge
to ground level during storm conditions.
With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a
developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water
courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is
recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are
attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or
off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public
sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final
manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the
removal of groundwater. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a
public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will
be required. They can be contacted on 0800 009 3921. Reason - to
ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be
detrimental to the existing sewerage system.
Legal changes under The Water Industry (Scheme for the Adoption of
private sewers) Regulations 2011 mean that the sections of pipes you
share with your neighbours, or are situated outside of your property
boundary which connect to a public sewer are likely to have transferred
to Thames Water's ownership. Should your proposed building work fall
within 3 metres of these pipes we recommend you contact Thames
Water to discuss their status in more detail and to determine if a building
over / near to agreement is required. You can contact Thames Water on
0800 009 3921 or for more information please visit our website at
www.thameswater.co.uk
Thames Water would advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure
capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning
application.
Where a developer proposes to discharge groundwater into a public
sewer, a groundwater discharge permit will be required. Groundwater
discharges typically result from construction site dewatering, deep
excavations, basement infiltration, borehole installation, testing and site
remediation. Groundwater permit enquiries should be directed to Thames
Water’s Risk Management Team by telephoning 020 8507 4890 or by
emailing wwqriskmanagement@thameswater.co.uk. Application forms
should
be
completed
on
line
via
www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality. Any discharge made without
a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the
provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991.
On the basis of information provided, Thames Water would advise that
with regard to water infrastructure capacity, we would not have any
objection to the above planning application.
Drawing numbers:
Design and Access Statement Received: 24 December 2014
1445/08 Rev. A Received: 26 January 2015
Background Papers:
The contents of planning file referenced on the front page of this report,
save for exempt or confidential information as defined in the Local
Government Act 1972, Sch. 12A Parts 1 and 2