REFERENCE NO:DOV/08/1283

PROPOSAL:Erection of two detached dwellings and construction of vehicular access (existing dwelling to be demolished)

LOCATION: 9 Granville Road, Walmer

______________________________________________________________________

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

DDLP - DD1, DD4 and HS2

KMSP - QL1 and TP19

Walmer Design Statement

__________________________________________

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

DOV/07/0038 - Outline application for the erection of a two storey building containing 9 flats. Access, layout and scale are matters for determination. Planning permission refused for the following reason:

The proposed development would introduce a building which would be of excessive scale and bulk with an extensive area of frontage vehicle parking and hard-surfacing. As a consequence, the proposals would erode the attractive character and appearance of this part of Granville Road in conflict with policies DD1 and DD5 of the Dover District Local Plan and Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.
The proposed development would result in an unacceptable reduction in the quality of the living conditions of the occupiers of number 11 Granville Road as a result of an increase in noise and disturbance from activities and movement in the front parking are and the rear garden and unacceptable dominating and over-shadowing impacts upon its rear rooms and garden. In these respects the proposal is in conflict with policies DD1 of the Dover District Local Plan and QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.
The proposal provides an inadequate level of car parking provision to serve the needs of the future occupiers of the nine flats. This lack of provision would be likely lead to additional parking on Granville Road resulting in congestion and a reduction in highway safety.

The appellant appealed and a informal hearing was held, the Inspector dismissed the appeal.

______________________________________________________________________

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATION:

KCC Highway Services - No objection subject to pedestrian sight lines and conditions being imposed

Ecology Officer - No response

Walmer Parish Council - Positively support the application subject to some conditions they would wish to be imposed.

Two letters of objection have been received from local residents, the comments are summarized as follows;

Do not object to the principle of 2 houses and recognise that some attention has been paid to the Inspector's comments
The proposal is still of the same significant bulk, the houses are in fact deeper and collectively wider
The depth is still a significant intrusion and reduction in amenity extending 7m past the existing rear building line
The dwellings are actually 3 storey and not 2 as described
It would not be in keeping with the character of the area to have two houses on this plot
The density of the site would stand out against other dwellings
If permission is granted it would set a precedent for other larger houses in the area to follow suit
It is essential for Walmer and Deal to retain large spacious family dwellings.

____________________________________________________________________

ANALYSIS:

The site lies within the Liverpool road character area within the Walmer Design Statement and is within the urban boundary of Walmer. Granville Road is relatively sylvan, spacious avenue of predominantly large detached houses in extensive gardens with mature planting in the front garden.

The Planning Inspector considering the previous application concurred with the WDS that `it is an area of substantial, individually designed houses set amongst trees and large gardens' the Inspector stated that this is an apt description of the site and its neighbours.

Planning permission is now being sought for two detached dwellings, which are two storey with accommodation in the roof space and with an attached double front projecting garage. Each house has a depth of approx. 22m and a width of 10.5m. House no. 1 would be only 2m away from the common boundary of no 7 and house no.2 positioned only 1m away from the common boundary of no. 11. From each other there would be a 2m separation distance.

No.7 is a detached house set some 16m away from the common boundary, along this boundary within the ownership of no.7 are large mature trees of significant visual importance, which provide ample screening between the two sites.

No.11 is also a two storey detached dwelling but situated only some 1m or so from the common boundary with no.9. This dwelling has got a few extensions but none that detract from the original character. The side elevation of this dwelling facing the site has a side extension with a steep mono-pitched roof, extending up to just under the eaves of the host dwelling, there are no roof lights in the roof slope and three small windows in the ground floor which appear to be subsidiary.

The main issues for consideration still relate to the following three areas;

Impact on the character and appearance of the area
Impact on residential amenities
Impact on highway safety

Impact on the character and appearance of the area

The individual width of the dwellings would be of comparable size to other dwellings in the area, however by reason of the close siting of the dwellings to each other and to the site boundaries they would be appear cramped and congested and out of keeping with the spatial character of the area.

In order to break up the bulk of the roof the architect has introduced different ridge heights, however this only adds to the visual bulk of roof on display.

The Inspector noted that in part the established character of the area is one of individually designed dwellings. It is therefore considered that the architect has a missed an opportunity to reflect the character of the area by designing two identical buildings.

The projecting double garage extends some 5m in front of the existing building line and some 3m further forward than no.11. Only one other dwelling in Granville Road has a front projecting garage (no.17a) some 130 south east, at this point in the road the character starts to alter. None the less the large projecting garage has been provided with a steep hipped roof in order to provide a concealed balcony area for bed.2, this would be a dominant, alien feature within the road detrimental to the existing character

The Inspector considered the large car parking area would be a change in character obvious from the road and would be a discordant feature. The new proposal is set some 9m further forward than the previous application thus a smaller car parking area is now proposed. However each dwelling would have three car parking spaces and an area to turn into leaving only a smaller strip at the sides of the garden available for soft landscaping. It is therefore considered that this proposal does not fully over come the harm identified by the Inspector.

Impact on Residential Amenities

The house at no.7 is set sufficient distance away from the boundary with a good amount of natural screening on the common boundary; the Inspector concluded that the development would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on no.7, which is an opinion which is still shared.

The Inspector concluded that the proposal would be oppressive to no.11 by reason of the proximity of the building to the boundary and the depth of the projection past the rear building line. A tracing marked `notes' demonstrates the extent of the outline application and the footprint of the dwellings now proposed, it clearly shows that the architect has considered the Inspectors comments by stepping the proposal away and back from the boundary. However the reduction has been only by about 1m in all directions, it is considered not a significant reduction to overcome the concerns expressed by the Inspector. Therefore the proposal would be an oppressive and dominant form of development detrimental to the residential amenities of no.11.

Side windows have been proposed however these would only serve bathrooms are stairwells and therefore should planning permission be granted a condition could be imposed requiring these to be fitted with obscure glass, in addition a further condition could be imposed to prevent further openings from being inserted into the side elevations.

Highways

The Highway Engineer is satisfied with this proposal subject to visibility splays being demonstrated and condition being imposed. The Inspector opined that the site is an urban site, with reasonably good access on foot, by cycle and by bus to local shops and services. Government policy is to encourage use of such modes and reduce dependence on the private car, thus he considered that it would be appropriate to allow a lower car parking standard. Bearing in mind this approach the Highway Engineer may be agreeable to a lower provision of car parking thus allowing a front garden with more soft landscaping. Should the applicant wish to resubmit a revised proposal they should pursue this option.

______________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION:

That planning permission be refused

Reasons for refusal;

The proposed dwellings, projecting front garages and excessive hard surfaces would by reason of the siting, design, mass, scale and proximity with the site boundary would represent an incongruous, dominant feature within the street scene, as a consequence the proposal would erode the attractive character and appearance of this part of Granville Road in conflict with policies DD1 and DD4 of the Dover District Local Plan and policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan.

The proposed house number 2 by reason of its height, mass, siting and proximity, would result in an unacceptable dominating and oppressive impact on no. 11 Granville Road, contrary to Dover District local Plan policy DD1 and Kent and Medway Structure Plan policy QL1.

COPY OF REPORT TO PC/TC YES

THIRD PARTIES TO BE INFORMED YES

CASE OFFICER: R Ellwood TIM FLISHER PRINCIPAL PLANNER AGREED

DATE: 26/01/09 DATE: