28 March 2017PLANNING COMMITTEE

5i / 16/0253 / Reg’d: / 10.02.2016 / Expires: / 29.06.16 / Ward: / HW
Nei. Con. Exp: / 27.05.16 / BVPI
Target / Minor (13-18) / Number of Weeks on Cttee’ Day: / 16/8 / On Target? / No
LOCATION: / The Ranch, Well Path, Horsell, Woking, Surrey, GU21 4PJ
PROPOSAL: / Demolition of existing detached garage/workshop and erection of a single storey side extension.
TYPE: / Householder
APPLICANT: / Mr Tom Tagoe / OFFICER: / Brooke Bougnague

______

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

The application has been referred to Planning Committee by Councillor Kemp who considers the use has a bearing to its effects on neighbouring properties due to increased disturbance in a close proximity.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Demolition of existing detached garage/workshop and erection of a single storey side extension.

PLANNING STATUS

  • High Accessibility Zone

RECOMMENDATION

Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The Ranch, Well Path is a detached bungalow sited on north side of Well Path. The frontage of the site is marked with a low rise boundary wall. There is a detached garage in the north east of the site. The area is characterised by residential dwellings.

PLANNING HISTORY

Most recent history:

PLAN/2015/0437: Erection of a single storey residential building attached via linked walkway following demolition of existing garage and storage building. Withdrawn

PLAN/2003/0310: Erection of a single storey side extension and conservatory. Permitted 10.04.2003

PLAN/1989/0822: Demolition of existing warehouse/garage with erection of a building to comprise double garage with flat above to be ancillary to existing dwelling. Refused 02.02.1990

PLAN/1988/0126: Erection of a single storey front extension and single storey side extension to existing dwelling. Permitted 06.04.1988

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Demolition of existing detached garage/workshop and erection of a single storey side extension.

CONSULTATIONS

None

REPRESENTATIONS

Five letters of objection received raising the following points:

  • Overshadowing
  • Loss of daylight
  • Loss of privacy
  • Increase in residents at The Ranch (a residential care home for people with learning disabilities/challenging behaviours and mental health needs) would result in an increase in noise disturbance which includes obscene and profane language.
  • Increase in number of residents from 3 to 5, but no increase in staffing levels
  • Increase in traffic problems
  • Increase in noise pollution from motorised vehicles
  • Increase the surface area of the development
  • The current facility already sits uncomfortablywithin our community - extending it further is highly inappropriate and exposes vulnerable young children and families to the disturbing behaviour of the residents.
  • Concerns over the accuracy and transparency of this planning application
  • Inconsistencies in the plans submitted and the current actual usage of the existing building.
  • Excessive infill development

Amended plans were received on 02.02.2017 clarify the position of the existing dwelling and proposed extension to the north and west boundaries.

Neighbours were re-consulted on amended plans on 06.02.2017 and three further representations were receivedraising the following points:

  • Concerns over accuracy of floorplans and the number of existing and proposed bedrooms
  • Unclear if increase in bedrooms is from 3 to 6 or 3 to 5 as declared
  • Only able to view amended plans online not the previously submitted plans online (Officer note: all plans including superseded plans are available for public viewing on the Councils website)
  • Unacceptable and long term increase in disruption and noise
  • Loss of privacy and overlooking
  • Represents excessive infill development
  • Loss of daylight flowing into our garden
  • Increase in traffic and noise
  • Extremely loud and constant vulgar language used on a regular basis is offensive and unacceptable
  • Loss of daylight and overshadowing

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

National Planning Policy Framework 2012

  • Section 7: Requiring Good Design

Woking Borough Core Strategy 2012

  • CS21: Design

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)

  • Parking Standards (2006)
  • Outlook, Amenity, Privacy and Daylight (2008)
  • Woking Design (2014)

PLANNING ISSUES

The main issues to consider with this application are the principle of the development, the impact on neighbouring properties, the impact on the character of the area and amenity space, parking and highways and private amenity space.

Principle of the Development

1.The site lies within the designated Urban Area where the principle of extensions to residential buildings is acceptable, subject to other relevant material planning considerations, specific development plan policies and national planning policy and guidance.

2.The proposal is for a single storey side extension to a dwelling. Concerns have been raised regarding the use of the dwelling.

3.Use Class Order C3 is formed of three parts. C3(b) states:

C3(b): up to six people living together as a single household and receiving care e.g. supported housing schemes such as those for people with learning disabilities or mental health problems.

The number of residents residing at the property would be 5, which is within the6 specified in C3(b).

4.The proposed extension would accommodate an office and twoensuite bedrooms bringing the total number of bedrooms to five (fourensuite and one with shared facilities). Day to day living facilities including kitchen, dayroom and bathroom would be shared with residents having unrestricted access to communal areas including the kitchen. Each resident would have their own bedroom. The layout of the property would be largely what one would expect of any family home. There are two offices provided, but the agent has advised one will be used as a store room. Home offices are not uncommon in dwellings today.

5.A report published by the Care Quality Commission in July 2016 reported residents choose the food and prepare meals with staff supervision and household tasks such as cleaning are divided between the residents with a rota. The communal living arrangements and the way in which household tasks are undertaken have indicated that the dwelling is operating as a single household.

6.There would be two members of staff during the day with one waking night staff, staffing would be increased as necessary for example due to external appointments. Residents living at the service require minimal support and are able to attend to most care needs with staff encouragement and promoting.During the day residents have a range of activities to get involved in and can choose and suggest activities. In addition residents are supported to use community facilitates and participate in community events.A report published by the Care Quality Commission in July 2016 states ‘people accessed the community every day and the house did not stand out as a care home within the community’.

7.The external appearance of the property is that of a dwellinghouse not of a residential institution.

8.Letters of representation have raised concerns over noise levels and inappropriate language. The applicant has confirmed that there have been some incidences of shouting from one of the residents at The Ranch. There are management protocols and behaviour management plans in place to ameliorate this behaviour, for both day and night. Incidences of noise do not dictate that the use of the property fall outside Class C3(b). Class C3(b) is defined as the use as a dwellinghouse by not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents. The term ‘care’ is defined at Article 2 of the Order and means; ‘personal care for people in need of such care by reason of old age, disablement, past or present dependence on alcohol or drugs or past or present mental disorder, and in Class C2 also includes personal care of children and medical care and treatment’.

9.Those with mental disorders may fall within Class C3(b). Although the noise may appear intimidating to neighbouring properties, the noise disturbances do not indicate that the residents are incapable of forming a household for the purposes of Class C3(b).

10.It is considered the use of the dwelling would fall under Class 3(b). The application would be considered as an extension to a dwellinghouse taking impact upon visual and residential amenity and parking into consideration.

Design and Impact on Character of the Area

11.The proposed single storey side extension would be approximately 9.2m deep and 8.3m wide. The extension would have a hipped roof with eaves height ofapproximately 2.8m and ridge height of approximately 5m to match the host dwelling. Proposed finishing materials be would brick under a tile roof to match the host dwelling. The proposed extension would be set back approximately 8.3m from the front elevation of the host dwelling and 14m from Well Lane. The proposal includes the removal of an existing detached garage workshop sited close to the boundaries with No.22 and No.22a Well Lane. The proposal would consolidate development further away from boundaries of neighbouring properties. It is considered the proposed single storey side extension would relate to the character of the host dwelling and would not detract from the character of the streetscene.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenity

12.The proposed single storey side extension would be sited approximately 8m from the boundary with Ardrossan, Well Path. No windows are proposed in the side elevation orientated towards Ardrossan, Well Path. It is considered there would be no additional loss of privacy or overlooking to Ardrossan, Well Path. Due to the separation distance it is considered there would not be a significant loss of daylight or overbearing impact toArdrossan, Well Path.

13.There would be a minimum 4.2m separation distance between the proposed extension and east side boundary adjoining the rear boundary of No.22 Well Lane. There is an existing garage/workshop to be demolished sited approximately 0.3m from the rear boundary of No.22 Well Lane. The existing garage/workshop to be demolished is primarily flat roof with a maximum height of 4.2m. The proposed single storey rear extension would have a pitched roof with an eaves height of approximately 2.6m and ridge height of 5m. It is considered the proposed single storey extension would not result in a significant loss of daylight and overbearing impact to No.22 Well Lane over and above the existing situation. Two ground floor windows serving two ensuites are proposed in the side elevation orientated towards No.22 Well Lane. Due to the ground floor position of the window, boundary treatment and separation distance it is considered the proposed windows would not result in an unacceptable level of overlooking or loss of privacy to No.22 Well Lane.

14.The application site adjoins the side and rear elevation of No.22a Well Lane. There is an existing detached garage/workshop to be demolished sited approximately 0.3m from the rear boundary and 0.4m from the side boundary of No.22a Well Lane. The proposed single storey extension would be sited approximately 1.2m from the side boundary with No.22a Well Lane. The ridge height of the proposed extension would be approximately 0.8m higher than the existing garage/workshop to be demolished but would be sited 0.8m further from boundary and have a hipped roof hipping away from the boundary. The proposed single storey rear extension would be sited approximately 5m from the rear boundary with No.22a Well Lane. The proposed single storey rear extension would be sited no closer to the boundary than the existing detached garage/workshop to be demolished. Overall, it is considered the proposal would not have a significant loss of daylight or overbearing impact on No.22a Well Lane. Two windows serving ensuites are proposed in the side elevation orientated towards No.22a Well Lane and one window serving a bedroom is proposed in the rear elevation. Due to the existing boundary treatment and ground floor of these windows it is considered there would not be a detrimental loss of privacy or overlooking to No.22a Well Lane.

15.In view of the above the proposed extension is considered to result in an acceptable impact on the neighbouring dwellings amenity in compliance with Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy 2012 and Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Outlook, Amenity, Privacy and Daylight’ 2008.

Highway and Parking Implications

16.The proposal would increase the number of bedrooms from three to five and include the demolition of an existing garage/workshop. Supplementary Planning Document ‘Parking Standards’ (2006) requires a maximum of two off street parking spaces to be provided for 3 or more bedroom units. The area to the front of the property has capacity for two off street parking cars. There is on street car parking available along Well Path. The proposal would therefore comply with Supplementary Planning Document ‘Parking Standards’ (2006) and retain a sufficient amount of off-street parking and is considered acceptable in terms of parking provision.

17.The Ranch, Well Path is considered a residential dwelling. An extension to a residential dwelling would not result in a significant increase in vehicle movements or parking pressure.

Impact on Amenity Space

18.The existing dwelling has a footprint of approximately 125sqm (excluding footprint of garage and workshop) with a private rear amenity space of approximately 139sqm. The proposed extension would measure approximately 72sqm and would result in a footprint for the dwelling of approximately 200sqm. The area of private amenity space to be retained would be approximately 137sqm.

19.The Outlook, Amenity, Privacy and Daylight SPA sets out the recommended minimum garden amenity areas. For dwellings above 65sqm (GFA) the recommendation is for a suitable area of private garden but always greater than the footprint of the building. For dwellings smaller than 65sqm there is no recommendation other than a shared space.

20.The footprint of the dwelling would be larger than the area of usable private amenity space. The area of private amenity space to be retained would be of an appropriate shape and is not shaded by large trees. It is considered the area of amenity space to be retained is sufficient for a family to sit, children to play, dry clothes or for plant cultivation. On balance the private area of amenity space to be retained would be of an appropriate shape and size to meet the domestic and recreational need of current and future occupiers of the dwelling. There is an area of green open space sited to the south of the application site.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL):

21.The proposed increase in residential floor area does not exceed 100m² and is consequently not CIL liable.

CONCLUSION

22.Overall, the proposal is considered to be appropriate in scale and character to the host building and surrounding area and is considered to have an acceptable impact on the amenities of neighbours. The proposal therefore accords with Core Strategy (2012) policy CS21 'Design', Supplementary Planning Documents ‘Parking Standards’ (2006), ‘Outlook, Amenity, Privacy and Daylight’ (2008) and ‘Woking Design’ (2015) and the National Planning Policy Framework and is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

  1. Site visit photographs
  2. Representations

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that planning permission be Granted subject to the following Conditions:-

  1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced not later than three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

  1. The external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building in material, colour, style, bonding and texture.

Reason:

To protect the character and appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy 2012.

  1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance the approved plans listed in this notice.

EC/2015/02B undated and received by the Local Planning Authority on 01.03.2017

EC/2015/03 undated and received by the Local Planning Authority on 10.02.2016

EC/2015/04A undated and received by the Local Planning Authority on 03.05.2016

EC/2015/05B undated and received by the Local Planning Authority on 02.02.2017

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the approved plans.

Informatives

1.You are advised that Council officers may undertake inspections without prior warning to check compliance with approved plans and to establish that all planning conditions are being complied with in full. Inspections may be undertaken both during and after construction.

1