REPORT
Planning Application No: 63/2008/8288
7 Day Notice: Yes
1.
Site Description
1.1
The application site comprises a semi-detached property located at 38 Regent
Drive, Skipton which has a slate roof and rendered/spar dashed walls. The
property is situated on a residential street characterised by similar properties many
of which have been extended. The house has an attached garage to the side which
is linked to a car port on the neighbouring property at no.40.
1.2
The site is within the Development Limit of Skipton as defined in the local plan.
2.
Proposal
2.1
It is proposed to construct a first floor extension over the existing garage to the side
of the house which would be stepped back from the front elevation by 0.9m and
would feature a hipped roof with a ridge 0.5m below the existing. In addition it is
proposed to provide an en-suite at first floor to the rear of the side extension by
creating a small extension projecting 1.9m and 2.9m in width with a shallow hipped
roof giving an overall height to the ridge of 6.3m. The proposals also include a flat
roofed full width single storey extension to the rear measuring 7.8m x 3.5m and
2.9m in height.
2.2
It is proposed
3.
Planning History
3.1
No recent planning history
4.
Planning Policy Background
4.1
H2, Appendix F.
5.
Parish/Town Council Comments
5.1
Skipton Town Council – No objection.
6.
Consultations
6.1
Skipton Civic Society – No comment.
7.
Representations
7.1
Two letters received objecting to proposal for the following reasons:

Houses on Regent Drive have been extended over period of time and road is
now beginning to look like an estate of townhouses or street houses.

People should buy larger properties if they want big houses with en-suite
bathrooms.

Extension will disrupt view over Skipton Moor to house opposite.

Extension will decrease value of house opposite.

Garage conversions result in increased on road parking.
8.
Summary of Principal Planning Issues
8.1
Design/scale and visual impact, impact upon amenity.
9.
Analysis
9.1
Design/scale and visual impact: The overall scale and design of the proposed
extensions are acceptable and would remain subordinate to the main house whilst
reflecting the key characteristics of the property such as the fenestration and roof
design. The first floor would incorporate a setback and lower ridge to overcome the
possibility of terracing in accordance with Appendix F of the local plan. The rear
extensions would remain unseen from the periphery of the site other than the ensuite extension which would only have a minimal impact viewed from the gap
between the site and the neighbouring property.
9.2
It is proposed to incorporate matching materials throughout and it is considered the
proposal is acceptable in terms of design, scale and visual impact.
9.3
Impact upon amenity: The rear extension would be contained to either side by an
extension and an outbuilding to the neighbouring properties and therefore no loss of
amenity would arise from this element of the proposals.
9.4
The first floor side extension would only directly impact upon the adjacent property
at no. 40 to the east of the site. The extension would lie on the boundary
approximately 3m from the side elevation of no. 40 which has a glass door and a
widow at ground floor and a first floor obscure glazed landing window facing the
applicant’s property. The proposed extensions would reduce some of the light to
these openings but not to a sufficient extent to justify refusal of planning permission.
There would be no loss of outlook to the door/windows and no significant visual
impact would arise from the en-suite projection which would be obscured from view
to an extent from the neighbouring property by their car port and outbuilding.
9.5
Objections have been received from the occupier of the property at 31 Regent Drive
which is located opposite. The only direct impact which would arise would be the
partial loss of a view through the gap between the applicants property and the
neighbouring house. This would not be sufficient to justify a refusal of planning
permission and the other issues, which are summarised above, are not relevant to
consideration of this proposal.
9.6
It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of impact upon amenity.
10.
Recommendation
10.1
That planning permission is granted.
11.
Summary of conditions
11.1
Std time condition and reason.
11.2
All external materials shall match in colour, form and texture those on the existing
building.
11.3
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
11.4
Informative: This permission refers only to that required under the Town and
Country Planning Acts and does not give permission to the developer to encroach
onto land outside of their control for the construction of this extension.
12.
Reasons for approval/refusal
12.1
The proposed extensions are of an appropriate scale and design and will not
adversely impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties to any significant
extent and thereby comply with the requirements of saved policy H20 and Appendix
F of the Craven District Council (Outside the Yorkshire Dales National Park) Local
Plan.