Loading document...
22 The kitchen is proposed to be moved up to ground floor level to take advantage of increased space and light available. It will be enlarged to encompass the full width of the building including the space between the outlet and wall with No11 and have glazed doors linking to an outdoor terrace or a link to the family room above the garage.
23 It is the seemingly the glazed link which backs onto the existing 2m high boundary wall with No 11 and the raising of the floor level of the existing terrace and its continuation over the whole ground floor level outside the kitchen which are the cause for the reasons for refusal. These both link to the garage building which is to have a family room above. The latter replaces the current living accommodation which was used as such by the owners of the former boarding house.
24 Currently this lower ground floor level of the “yard” is occupied by outbuildings on the north side adjacent to No 11 and an external staircase which leads to the existing patio terrace above the outbuildings and the entrance to the family accommodation above the garage.
25 The overall proposal for the main part of the dwelling and outlet therefore represents a considerable compromise on the earlier application. It addresses the reasons for the latter’s refusal (Appendix B).
26 With regard to Reason 1 it is proposed that adjacent to the terrace the boundary between Nos. 12 and 13 will be formed by a wall and balustrade 1.5m high above the floor level of the proposed terrace. The balustrade is made up of railing closely spaced and a person will have to be 1.65m in height to see over the top of it ie adult height. The railings match those already in situ on No 13. The balustrade will link onto the existing pillar attached to the garage building and to the boundary wall at the other end as shown in drawing P05 rev A. With respect to the concerns of No 13 there is no pillar on the boundary wall between No 12 and No 13 at the eastern end ie north-east corner of No 13’s outlet (Photographs)
27 My clients believe that the combination of wall and balustrade will provide little opportunity to overlook the well of No 13 and will not take light from it. It is respectfully pointed out that the existing patio terrace above the garage of No 13 enables overlooking down into the yard and possibly rear windows of No 12. It is also noted that when PA 08/01664/B was granted for No 17 Derby Square a screen wall only 1.1m in height was considered sufficient to overcome concerns re overlooking. (Appendix D). However a glazed screen wall of the nature proposed in the applications for Nos. 2-4 and 17 Derby Square could be used to give a total 1.8m boundary wall height above terrace floor level in lieu of the railings (Appendix E).
28 With regard to Reason 2 the existing terrace has a 2m high boundary wall as viewed from No 12 between it and No 11 (photographs). The proposed terrace floor level will be 0.6m higher than the existing one. This is to ensure that the whole of the ground floor level including the links to the family room are all at the same level and do not have additional stairs in them. Such through levels can only occur at this level and at lower ground floor level.
29 The proposed boundary wall is only 0.9m higher than the existing wall and its top will still be 0.5m and 1.5 m respectively below the ridge of the garage and the outlet wall on either side. Sun angles from the windows coupled with the direction of them from the infill section of wall together
with the existence of the higher garage behind does not suggest that there will be any overshadowing or loss of light sufficient to justify refusal of the application (photographs).
30 It is noted that the occupants of No 11 have stated in their letter dated 4th August 2011
“---plans submitted as 11/00991/B retain the footprint of the original building and are completely aligned with the architectural style of the neighbouring properties. The rear extension in this plan also maintains the same height as the existing extension, which we would be delighted to see. This plan would not obstruct any of our terraces or views and would add to the value of our property.”
31 At the time that No 11 obtained approval for its terrace there was a “fence” on top of the boundary wall. Since then the boundary wall has been increased in height to replace the fence. The now existing height of the wall was clearly not considered a problem in terms of potential overshadowing when the alterations including the terrace at No11 was approved.
32 The terrace at No 11 is north-north east of the boundary wall between No 11 and 12. With this orientation it relies primarily on sun reaching it directly in the morning and upto noon. At the spring and winter equinoxes in March and September the highest angle the sun reaches is 36 degrees. Projecting this angle upwards from ground floor level on the terrace shows that the garage and wall at No 12 may already have some effect on obstructing the sun reaching the terrace at this time. Projecting it upwards from the point of view of someone seating or standing on the terrace indicates that the line is well clear of the proposal. By the time the sun drops low enough for the proposed wall height to potentially be a problem the sun is already partially obstructed by the existing buildings including the garage roof of No 12 and No 13’s outlet (Appendix F).
33 With regard to both reasons for refusal my clients would draw attention to the following applications which have been approved around Derby Square for new buildings and / or alterations including the formation of terraces on rear elevations.
34 On the east side of the square
PA 09/01642 for Nos. 2-4 Derby Square gave consent for a complete new build to replace existing commercial premises. While the front of the proposal reflects the designs of the existing terraces the rear is completely contemporary making much use of glass including glazed boundary divisions. The property is immediately adjacent to a very low height residence Vine Villa. Despite this it was considered that the proposal will not cause harm in terms of taking light, sunlight, or being overbearing with respect to that property including its garden. (Appendix G)
35 For number 17 Derby Square PA 08/01664/B alterations and erection of extension to rear elevation approved (Appendix C). The proposal involves the creation of several terraces surrounded by balustrade. The latter are only 1.1m high. They thus enable overlooking into the neighbouring property.
36 On the west side of the square
PA 08/00952/B & PA 09/00952/B gave consent for rear outbuildings at Nos. 47 and 48 to be extended despite the fact that in doing so they could cause amenity problems for adjoining properties. (Appendix H and Appendix I).
37 On the south side 5 storey contemporary outlets have been permitted on the rear (PA 07/00949) at No 33 and 35 (Appendix J). 38 All the outlets and terraces have some impact with regard to overlooking and overshadowing. 39 My clients therefore consider their application’s refusal unjustified.
40 The property is a former boarding house which encompassed the owner’s living accommodation. Under The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 Article 2(3) it is understood by way of reference to Schedule 3 Class 2 that planning consent is not required for the building’s change of use only from boarding house / guest-house to use as a dwelling house. No Order has been made restricting such changes of use in Conservation Areas ie to exclude buildings in the latter from this Schedule .
Patricia S. Newton October 2011
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown