APPLICATION No:	08/57213/HH

APPLICANT:	M Pollard

LOCATION:	18 Sapling Road Swinton M27 0BZ    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a single storey rear extension and retention of boundary wall

WARD:	Swinton South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The application relates to a detached bungalow situated on the east side of Sapling Road in a predominantly residential area.  The adjacent property No.16 is also a bungalow.  The application property currently has a conservatory to the rear, close to the boundary with No.16 that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. The ground level of the application site is approximately 1m higher than No.16.  

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The existing kitchen / dining room is currently ‘L’ shaped, with the existing conservatory situated to the rear and projecting a maximum of 4.5m from it. It is approximately 4.5m from the boundary with No.16.  The development would ‘square off’ the existing dining room / kitchen.  It would project 4.2m beyond the dining / kitchen area with a proposed utility area infilling the ‘L’ shape.  The extension would provide a utility room and a conservatory.

A boundary wall has already been constructed along the side common boundary with no.16. It extends the full length of the side common boundary with no.16, and is staggered in height starting at 1m towards Sapling road and increasing to a maximum height of 3m with brick pillars. When viewing the boundary wall from the application site its overall height is 2m due to the difference in level between the application site and no.16.

SITE HISTORY

01/43367/HH - Demolition of existing porch and conservatory and erection of single storey side and rear extensions, new front porch, conservatory at rear and construction of pitched roofs over existing bays – Approved - 16.01.2002, this permission appears to have been implemented.

08/56290/HH- Erection of a single storey rear extension- Withdrawn

The current application is very similar to the previously withdrawn application. The applicant has now erected a boundary wall. This application has been referred to the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel because the previous application was deferred from the Panel meeting on 5th June 2006 as the Panel members requested further information, this was:

•	A plan showing the difference in level between the application site and no.16
•	Details of the boundary wall

Since this information was requested the applicant withdrew the application and have now resubmitted the current application further with the required information.

CONSULTATIONS

N/A

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified: 

33,35,16,20,29 and 31 Sapling Road
35-43 Folly Lane

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection has been received with regards to the above application the following issues have been raised:

•	The difference in land level are not clearly displayed on the plans as they plans are only showing the difference in level from the front of the properties.

The current application has included plans clearly showing the difference in level between the application site and no.16 from the rear elevations. 

•	The proposal would create loss of light to dining room window and bedroom window at no.16

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

ADOPTED CITY OF SALFORD UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Site specific policies: 	None

Other policies:		DES1- Respecting Context
			DES7- Amenity of Users and Neighbours
			DES8- Alterations and Extension
			
ADOPTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

None
			
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Supplementary Planning Document: House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Document- Design and Crime

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Design

UDP Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context and respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards a local identity and distinctiveness. 

UDP Policy DES8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations or extensions to existing buildings that respect the general scale, character, rhythm, proportions, details and materials of the original structure and complement the general character of the surrounding area.

The extension would be located to the rear of the bungalow and will be partly visible from the highway. A condition has therefore been suggested which will ensure that the materials match those of the existing building. The extension would be subordinate to the bungalow and would therefore not appear overbearing to the existing bungalow. That part of the boundary wall nearest the highway is visible from Sapling Road. The boundary fence increases in height towards the rear of the property and is therefore not highly visible. The wall has been constructed from red bricks, with red brick pillars and wooden infill panels. There was an existing boundary wall of a similar height, massing and design which was demolished due to being in a poor state of repair. Given these circumstances it is considered the proposed development would not be an incongruous feature within its setting nor would it harm the character of the area or the character of the dwelling. It is also considered the existing boundary wall is not an incongruous feature within the street scene and does not harm the character of the dwelling or the character of the area in accordance with the above policies.

Amenity

UDP Policy DES7 states that alterations and extensions to existing buildings will be required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout.  It states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or user of other development.

The boundary wall is situated along the common boundary with no.16, it is of a similar design, height and massing as the existing boundary wall which was demolished due to being in a poor state of repair. The surrounding neighbouring dwellings currently have 1.5m to 2m high walls and fences along the side common boundaries. Given that the current boundary wall is no higher than the pre-existing boundary wall it is considered it does not have a more significant impact on neighbouring occupiers than the existing wall in terms of loss of light and overbearing in accordance with Policy DES7.

Policy HE1 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing principal windows of habitable rooms and a minimum distance of 10.5m between the principal window of any habitable room of the proposed extension and the common boundary with the facing property (if applicable).

Policy HE2 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that introduce windows or open aspects close to and directly overlooking the gardens of neighbouring dwellings.  The reasoned justification to this policy considers the term ‘close to’ refers to 5m, however this can be overcome with obscure glazing, except to principle habitable room windows.

The proposed extension would be approximately 10m away from the rear common which upon this is a 1.5m high fence and it would be no closer to the rear common boundary than the existing conservatory.  There would be a utility room window located to the side of the proposed extension facing No.16.  This window would be within 2m of this boundary.  It has been agreed with the applicant that this window will be obscure glazed and a condition has been suggested to ensure this.  There would also be windows in the proposed conservatory facing No.20 approximately 12m from the common boundary.  It is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact in terms of privacy on the occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with the above policies.

Policy HE5 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for single storey rear extensions that project beyond a 45 degree line taken from either the mid point of a principal ground floor window of a habitable room or a point 3m along the common boundary from the rear elevation of adjoining or adjacent dwellings.

Policy HE4 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for a single storey extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of 9m between its blank gable end wall and facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings. This same distance applies for proposed single storey extensions facing existing blank gable end wall and extensions at the same floor level as neighbouring windows.

The rear elevation of No.16 has a number of windows located upon it.  Closest to the boundary with the application site is a kitchen door and window.  Next to this is a bedroom window. 

The proposal would project approximately 1.2m beyond a 45-degree angle taken from the mid-point of this bedroom window. The element of the proposed extension that projects beyond the 45-degree angle would be approximately 14m away from this habitable room window. Policy HE4 would allow a single storey extension to be built 9m in front of this window. Whilst the proposal is not strictly in compliance with Policy HE5 it is considered on balance that the relationship of the extension and the bedroom window is acceptable even whilst taking into consideration the difference in levels.

The proposal would not project beyond a 45 degree line taken from a point 3m along the common boundary from the rear elevation of No.20 or adjacent dwellings .It is therefore considered the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of No.16 or No.20 in terms of loss of light and overbearing in accordance with HE5 and DES7.

No.16 currently has a dining room window in the side elevation that faces the application property. The principles of Policy HE5 can be used to assess the impact on No.16.  The proposal would be within a 45-degree line taken from the mid point of this habitable room.  As part of the site inspection the officer viewed the proposed extension from the dining room window of no.16.  In the majority of this room the proposed extension would not be highly visible.  It could only be clearly seen when viewed from the northwest corner of the room.  As such it is not considered the proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact in terms of loss of light or overbearing on the occupants of No.16.

Design and Crime

Policy DC16 of the Design and Crime SPD states boundary treatments should maximize natural surveillance where appropriate and should be designed to a high standard. 

The proposed wall would define the public and private space. Consequently, it would deter criminal activity, and given that the main element of the wall would appear at a maximum height of 3m (and a minimum of 1m in height )it is considered the proposed boundary treatment would not appear fortress like in accordance with DC16.

There are no principal habitable room windows on the side elevation of No.16, there is a secondary dining room window towards the front of the property.

Conclusion

It is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the street scene or the amenity of neighbours and future occupiers in accordance with all relevant policies within the Unitary Development Plan, Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document and the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document, and that there are no other material considerations that outweigh those policies

Accordingly, approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 

2.	 The facing materials to be used for the materials to match of the development shall be the same type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3.	Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use, the window in the southern elevation facing No.16 sapling Road of the development shall be provided with and permanently glazed, in textured glass whose obscuration level is 5 on a scale of 1-5 (where 1 is clear and 5 is completely obscure).

(Reasons)

1.	Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

2.	To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan. 

3.	To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan. 

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal. Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works.   Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk

2.	Please note this permission relates to the plans received on 4th December 2008.