Delegated Decision Thursday 2 November 2017.

Application Number: / F/17/80352
Case Officer: / Gary Osmond
Received Date: / Monday 10 April 2017
Site Address: / 4 New Road, Netley Abbey, Southampton, SO31 5DL
Applicant: / Mr Owen Callaghan
Proposal: / Erection of two storey side extension (including constructed single storey extension)
Recommendation: / PERMIT

CONDITIONS AND REASONS

1 / The development hereby permitted shall start no later than three years from the date of this decision.Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 / The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match in type, colour and texture those used on the existing dwelling.Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual relationship between the new development and the existing.
3 / The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the parking area has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter permanently retained and used only for the purpose of accommodating private motor vehicles incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as a residence.Reason: To make provision for off street parking for the purpose of highway safety.
4 / No construction, demolition or deliveries to the site shall take place during the construction period except between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays or 0900 to 1300 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.
5 / No burning of materials obtained by site clearance or any other source shall take place during the demolition, construction and fitting out process.Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.
Note to Applicant: In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Eastleigh Borough Council takes a positive approach to the handling of development proposals so as to achieve, whenever possible, a positive outcome and to ensure all proposals are dealt with in a timely manner.
Note to Applicant: It is requested that the building works are carried out considerately to minimise disruption to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. The council operates a code of best practice, which is available on the council's website by following the links to Planning, Guidance on the process, scroll down to Guidance on Aspects of the Planning & Construction Process and select considerate builders advice note.

Report:

This application has been referred to Committee by Councillors Airey, Craig, Cross and Van Niekerk.

Description of Application

  1. The application seeks consent for the construction of a two storey side extension which includes a single storey side extension which has already been constructed.

Site Area

  1. Approximately 300 square metres.

Residential Development Density (Net)

  1. No change.

Topography, Trees & Boundary Treatment

  1. The site slopes down away from the street to the rear of the site, with a drop of around a 1.0 – 1.5 metres from front to back. There are some small ornamental trees to the rear of the site. The site is open to the front with 1.8 metre close board timber fences to the side and rear boundaries.

Site Characteristics & Character of Locality

  1. No.4 is a 1970s two storey semi-detached dwelling which appears to have previously been extended to the side and rear. However, it is unclear if these previous additions have been partially rebuilt or have been incorporated into that now present on site. To the front is a drive and to the rear is a garden which can be accessed from the rear parking area of the neighbouring ‘Morse Court’.
  1. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature with this end of New Road being made up of a mixture of two storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings of varying ages and architectural styles. While not within it, the rear of the site backs onto the Netley Conservation Area.

Relevant Planning History

  1. The last application on the site (F/16/79049) for a first floor side extension and retention of front canopy was refused in November 2016 on the grounds of: scale, mass, form and design; visual impact upon No.1 Morse Court; overlooking of neighbouring properties from the proposed balcony; and insufficient parking to serve the enlarged dwelling.
  1. The only other record of any previous works was an approval for a ground floor extension in 1976 (Z/17356/000/00).

Representations Received

  1. Two representations have been received from neighbours at Nos.2 & 3 New Road commenting upon the application, both objecting and raising the following points:
  • Works undertaken without gaining planning approval
  • Devaluation of property
  • Does not address previous refusal
  • Visually obtrusive and incongruous
  • Out of character with the street
  • Will dominate neighbouring properties
  • Concerns that it will be converted into flats or used as an HMO

Consultation Responses

  1. Hound Parish Council – Object. Overdevelopment, size and scale of development not in keeping with the street scene. Overshadowing of neighbouring properties.

Policy Context: Designation Applicable to Site

  • Within Built-up Area Boundary
  • Within Established Residential Area
  • Adjacent to Designated Conservation Area

Development Plan Saved Policies and Emerging Local Plan Policies

  • Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 saved Policies: 25.NC, 59.BE & 104.T
  • Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, July 2014 Policies: DM1, DM9 & DM24
  1. The Submitted Local Plan comprises: the Revised Pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, published February 2014; and the Schedule of Proposed Minor Changes, submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2014.

Supplementary Planning Documents

  • Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Places (November 2011)
  • Supplementary Planning Document: Character Area Appraisals – Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound – BHH 1 (January 2008)
  • Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Parking Standards (January 2009)

National Planning Policy Framework

  1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Para 14 sets out a general presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that development proposals which accord with the development plan should be approved without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of the development would outweigh the benefits; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted (paragraph 14). Local plan policies that do not accord with the NPPF are now deemed to be “out-of-date”. The NPPF requires that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. In other words the closer the policies in the plan accord to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given.

National Planning Practice Guidance

  1. Where material, this guidance should be afforded weight in the consideration of planning applications.

Policy Commentary

  1. The above policies and guidance combine to form the criteria against which this application will be assessed with particular regard to the principle of that applied for, the partial retrospective nature of the application, its layout, design and impact upon the street scene and character of the surrounding area, parking and highway issues, residential amenity and nature conservation.

Comment on Consultation Responses and Representations Received

  1. All planning related comments are noted and responded to where appropriate below.
  1. With regards to the devaluation of property, while an obvious concern for those affected, this is not a material planning consideration and cannot be used to determine an application one way or other.

Assessment of Proposal: Development Plan and / or Legislative Background

  1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:-

"If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise."

  1. In this case policy issues for consideration include:

Principle

  1. The application site lies within the urban edge where the basic principle of development is considered to be acceptable, with any formal planning approval being based upon the exact nature, design and impact of that proposed being considered appropriate and in accordance with the relevant Local Plan policies and Supplementary Planning Documents. The most relevant policy in this case is saved Policy 59.BE of the Local Plan which requires development to take full and proper account of the context of the site including the character and appearance of the locality and be appropriate in mass, scale, materials, layout, design and siting. It also requires a high standard of landscape design, a satisfactory means of access and layout for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, to make provision for refuse and cycle storage and avoid unduly impacting on neighbouring uses through overlooking, loss of light, loss of outlook, and noise and fumes. Also of relevance is Policy DM1 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, July 2014, which essentially reiterates the above requirements.

Retrospective Application

  1. As has been highlighted by neighbours, work on site started back in May 2016 without consent having been sought. This lead to a planning enforcement investigation and the submission of the 2016 planning application and that now been considered.
  1. The National Planning Policy Framework says that enforcement action is discretionary, and that local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. Section 73A of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 specifically provides that a granting of planning permission may relate to development carried out before the date of the application’ (para 6). Furthermore, an application cannot be refused on grounds that it is retrospective. When considering the development regard has to be had to Government guidance and the policies contained within the Development Plan.
  1. Therefore, while seeking retrospective consent is not encouraged, as permission may not be granted, the application cannot be refused simply because the works have already started. Equally, the fact that works have already commenced does not give additional weight to a development which may not be considered acceptable in planning terms. Any works undertaken without consent are done so at the applicant’s own risk.

Layout, Design, Street Scene & Area Character

  1. The main reason for refusal of the previous application was its impact upon the existing street scene and character of this end of New Road. The scheme proposed an overly large roof with dormer windows, both features not found along the road or in the immediate area. The now submitted scheme proposes a full first floor addition with a roof which would match the existing dwelling and adjoin the neighbouring Morse Court properties. Although physically larger than that refused, the proportions of this revised scheme are considered to be much more acceptable and would essentially follow the existing terraced character along this south-western side of New Road. Whilst the comments from those objecting are noted, that now proposed would not result in an incongruous addition to the street and as such is considered to accord with the requirements of saved Policy 59.BE of the adopted Local Plan, Policy DM1 of the Submitted Local Plan and the Council’s ‘Quality Places’ and ‘ Character Area Appraisals’ Supplementary Planning Documents.

Parking & Highway Issues

  1. The previous scheme was also refused on the grounds of the submitted information not adequately demonstrating that sufficient off-road parking could be accommodated to serve the enlarged dwelling. The Council’s ‘Residential Parking Standards’ Supplementary Planning Document requires a dwelling with four or more bedrooms to provide a minimum of three off-road parking spaces. The scheme now submitted demonstrates that the necessary three off-road spaces can be accommodated on the site frontage. As such, the scheme is now considered to meet the requirements of saved Policies 59.BE and 104.T of the adopted Local Plan, Policy DM24 of the Submitted Local Plan and the above mentioned parking Supplementary Planning Document.

Residential Amenity

  1. A further reason for refusal of the previous scheme was the resulting impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking and loss of outlook. The balcony which was included on the previous scheme has now been removed, thereby overcoming the concerns of unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy. The concerns with regards to loss of outlook have also been addressed by reducing the depth of the previously proposed two storey rear extension and by pulling it away from the shared boundary with No.1 Morse Court. While some impact upon the outlook from the rear of this would remain, it would not be to an unacceptable or detrimental extent in planning terms.
  1. The previous reasons for refusal relating to residential amenity have also been adequately overcome. As such the application is considered to accord with the requirements of saved Policy 59.BE of the adopted Local Plan, Policy DM1 of the Submitted Local Plan and the Council’s ‘Quality Places’ Supplementary Planning Document.

Nature Conservation

  1. The proposal is not considered to result in a likely significant impact on a European Protected site (SPA, SAC or Ramsar). HRA (Habitat Regulations Assessment) screening was not required for this development as it falls outside the designated zone of impact.
  1. The site falls inside the 5.6km buffer zone for the Solent SPA but given that no additional dwelling units should be created, a contribution is not required to mitigate the increased recreational pressure resulting from the development.

Planning Obligation / Considerations

  1. Due to the nature if the application no planning obligations are considered necessary.

Other material considerations

  1. Also of relevance is the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, July 2014. While not yet adopted it does carry weight by virtue of being intended as the current local plan’s replacement. With regards to this application, the new policies essentially echo those of the current plan and are not considered to affect the recommendation put forward.

Conclusion

  1. The concerns of neighbours and the parish with regards to building works having commenced prior to any planning permission be granted are noted. However, paragraph 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework clearly states that an application cannot be refused on the grounds that it is retrospective. The application must therefore be considered against the relevant local planning policies, the NPPF and supplementary planning guidance.
  1. It is also acknowledged that a previous application for a similar development was refused, which in this instance is a material planning consideration. Notwithstanding this, the scheme now proposed is considered to be acceptable in its form, scale and design, will have no adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties, and reflect the existing terraced character of this end of New Road. As such, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out above.