| Conditions / Reason for Refusal: |
01
The Council considers that the proposed increase in height of the existing garage to form ancillary accommodation by virtue of its size, scale, mass, elevated position and design would relate poorly to the host property and would appear overly dominant and incongruous to the detriment of the street scene and visual amenity of the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Local Plan Polices CS28 ‘Sustainable Design’ and SP55 ‘Design Principles’, the advice set out in the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Householder Design Guide’, and the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.
02
The council also considers that the proposal, by virtue of its maximum height of 6.2 metres and close proximity to the site boundary would have an overbearing impact to the occupiers of No. 20 Pearsons Close and users of the footpath between the properties, contrary to Local Plan Policy SP55 ‘Design Principles’ and the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Householder Design Guide’ as well as to the NPPF.
INFORMATIVE
The submitted plans are inconsistent as the layout plan shows no first floor windows on the northern elevation, overlooking the rear garden area of 20 Pearsons Close, but the elevational plan shows a window in this location, presumably serving the second bedroom. In addition, the layout plan shows a rooflight serving this room but the elevational plan shows no such rooflight.
However, there is a second window serving this room so the one in the northern elevation could be obscure glazed and the rooflight would be high enough to prevent any direct overlooking. As such, it is considered that any issue of overlooking could be controlled by condition.
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT
The applicant did not enter into any pre application discussions with the Local Planning Authority. During the determination of the application It was identified that it is not possible to support a scheme of this nature nor would any amendments make it acceptable. It was not considered to be in accordance with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework and resulted in this refusal.
|
