Loading document...
The proposal comprises replacement of a garage with an extension to the dwelling and creation of a dormer extension at first floor level. The property is two storey at present with bedroom accommodation in the roof space.
At ground floor level a single storey rear extension will bring the property to within 16 m of No 10 Hillcrest Grove but a 2.5 m high hedge between the properties prevents any overlooking.
The dormer extension at upper floor level will not bring the property any closer to Nos 12/12A and No 10 Hillcrest Grove. It is currently possible to look down on to No 12 A but this is at a distance of 35 m . The garden of No 10 can also be seen from the gable window of No 3. The distance between the dwellings will be a minimum of 22.5 m at the upper level.
Parking for two cars at an angle is still achievable at the front of the property. This is satisfactory to the Department of Transport as Highway Authority.
There are several properties with flat roof dormers nearby. Some of these are much more dominant on the street scene and closer to the street frontage than that of my clients. Mr \& Mrs Corran's proposal will not be out of character in the setting of the estate in which it is located.
Phone: 01624 861560
Fax: 01322/B ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO DWELLING & ROSEDENE AVENUE ONCHAN
bedroom above the new study. The dormer will have separate windows for each room and is not glazed on its east and west gables.
7 The proposal has been approved by the Planning; however Mr \& Mrs Helwich of No 12 Hillcrest Grove have lodged an appeal against the approval.
8 With respect to No 12 and 12A Hillcrest Grove at present a view is obtained from upstairs in No 3 from the gable window looking down to the rear garden and the rear windows of No 12A. However this is at a distance of 35 m well beyond the minimum distance of 20 m considered acceptable for directly opposing windows let alone even shorter distances which may be acceptable for properties such as these which are at an obtuse angle to one another (between 105 and 125 degrees) (see photographs). My clients would emphasise that they did not object when plans the most recent plans to extend No 12 / No 12A were submitted (PA 08/0896).
9 The view that will be obtained from the nearest part of the proposed dormer will be little different. From the centre of the dormer any view towards No 11 will be at an angle of at least 108 degrees horizontal. The distance between the two dwelling houses will be a minimum of 32.5 m . The proposal will have no significantly greater impact on the privacy and amenity of that property than at present. Trees in the garden No 5 also help screen the view particularly in the summer months.
10 A previous proposal (PA 08/998/B) at No 12 is not comparable to that of my clients. That at No $12 / 12 \mathrm{~A}$ involved building up living accommodation within 6 m of the common corner boundary of No 3 including having external stairs and door access to an upper floor on its northern gable facing towards Rosedene Avenue (appeal report Appendix B).
11 With respect to No 10 Hillcrest Grove the boundary between the two properties is primarily formed by a 2.5 m high hedge. The hedge obscures views into the rear downstairs bedroom which has a gable window in it. Views into the garden may be obtained at present from the east gable window of No 3. The proposal in terms of the upstairs dormers will generally overlook the top of No 10 while, due to the latter's orientation, not affecting its privacy. The closest part of the dwellings will be a minimum of 22.5 m apart at this level. The difference in ground level of the properties means that the actual distance between opposing windows will be greater.
12 At ground floor level it is proposed to construct a 7 m long single storey flat roof extension to accommodate a new kitchen cum breakfast room. This will be in the direction of No 10's garden. However its gable end will still be 7 m from the boundary with No 10 and 16 m from the nearest opposing part of that dwelling. The ground level of the new kitchen will be the same as that of the existing and the adjoining dining room.
From this it can be seen that there is no view direct into the rear of No 10 due to the high hedge between the two properties (See Photographs).
13 This property is unoccupied at present. However the proposal will have no additional windows facing this property. The dormer will not enable looking out over the garden of No 5 to any greater extent than is feasible at present from the gable window (see photographs).
14 The rebuild of the garage and its extension into the rear garden does bring No 10 closer to the gable of No 1 . However the design removes the existing upstairs gable window and only introduces one window and a door to serve the ground floor level. Neither is to main living accommodation. The only window on the west side of No 1 has opaque glazing. Thus there will be no impact on the privacy of No 1 The rear extension is matched by one on No 1 .
15 Apart from the conversion of the garage parking arrangements outside would remain with two vehicles being able to reverse into the parking area. Rosedene Avenue is a short cul-de sac. The reversing of vehicles off the public highway into the property does not cause any problems to through traffic. The garage is not used at present.
16 At present the parking area behind the building line is currently formed by a steep slope down to the garage. As a consequence neither it nor the garage are used as such. In practice therefore parking will effectively remain as at present in front of the main building line but in part to the rear of a subsidiary building line.
17 The Department of Transport is satisfied that a sufficient standard of parking may still be achieved.
18 While my client is self-employed he has premises elsewhere for business storage.
19 Albeit part of an estate the street pattern is not rigid and the neighbourhood incorporates a variety of styles of dwellings and extensions.
20 As evidenced by the attached photographs some submitted by Mr \& Mrs Helwich with regard to their previous appeal there are examples of dwellings nearby with flat roof dormers far more open to view from the street than my clients' proposal will be. Some are on the street frontage.
21 No 9 Rosedene Avenue obtained permission to construct a similar wide dormer the width of its property at its rear (PA 97/1966). This was not deemed to have an adverse
impact on the street scene albeit can be seen from Hillcrest Grove. As evidenced in the photographs it can also be seen very easily from the rear of No 12/12A yet there were no objections to that proposal from those properties or the Planning Office.
22 The current proposal at No 3 will be partly hidden from view by the roof of No 10. Other views of the dormers will be more distant from Hillcrest Grove than the proposal to heighten the garage at No 12/12A was. While the latter was refused the Inspector at appeal noted "I appreciate that public views of the proposal would be limited and I recognise that the existing garage is setback by around 12 m from the spur of Hillcrest Grove." (Appendix B)
23 By way of contrast the proposal
24 The overall impact on the street scene will be negligible. 25 There are examples of other properties in the locality (see photographs) which have similar styled dormers on their properties
No 23 Hillcrest Grove has such dormers both front and back; these appear to be only 12.5 m from the opposing property (No 25 Hillcrest Grove) and are visible when entering Hillcrest Grove from Birchhill Crescent
No 2 Rosedene Close has a dormer at the back which enables looking down on the rear off No. 1 Laurel Avenue at a distance of 18 m . This dormer is very evident on the street scene as one progresses north along Birchhill Crescent.
26 It is concluded that No 3 Rosedene Avenue as proposed would not be incongruous or out of place in such surroundings.
27 The Inspector is welcome to view the views from No 3 from both the garden and within the property if the latter is deemed necessary.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
