| Conditions / Reason for Refusal: |
01
The Council considers that the proposed single storey side and rear extension and
pitched roof to existing detached garage by virtue of their excessive footprint, size
and scale is a poor form of development and represents overdevelopment of the
site. Due to its excessive size and location, it fails to take opportunities to create a
good design and is not subservient to the host property. The proposal would be out
of character with the grain of the surrounding area and is considered to be dominant
upon the host property. As such the development is contrary to Local Plan Policies
CS28 ‘Sustainable Development’ and SP55 ‘Design Principles’, as well as the
Council’s SPD ‘Householder Design Guide’ and the guidance in the National
Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance.
02
The Council further considers that due to the footprint of the proposal and its size,
location and the orientation of the gable garage roof towards the neighbour at no 17
the extensions would result in an unacceptable visual impact upon the neighbouring
property. The proposal is therefore contrary to SP55 ‘Design Principles’, as well as
the Council’s SPD ‘Householder Design Guide’ and the guidance in the National
Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance.
03
The Council considers that the submitted plans do not accurately reflect the existing
garage dimensions or the proposal in its entirety in relation to the proposed pitched
roof. It is therefore difficult to assess the level of impact of the garage roof addition
on the neighbouring property. As such the development is not considered to meet
the design requirements of Local Plan policies CS28 and SP55 and the
Supplementary Planning Document - ‘Householder Design Guide’
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT
The applicant did not enter into any pre application discussions with the Local
Planning Authority. Discussions during the determination of the application have
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.
|
