4 JUNE 2009 NOT EXEMPT

Transcription

1 STIRLING COUNCIL THIS REPORT RELATES TO ITEM 7 ON THE AGENDA PLANNING PANEL ENVIRONMENT SERVICES 4 JUNE 2009 NOT EXEMPT PROPOSED CONSERVATORY AND WINDOW REPLACEMENT AT 35 PARK TERRACE, KINGS PARK, STIRLING, FK8 2JS - MR & MRS TROMBALA 08/00670/LBC & 08/00673/HAE 1 SUMMARY 1.1 To determine Listed Building Consent Application 08/00670/LBC and Planning Application 08/00673/HAE. 1.2 These Applications were recommended for Approval on the Weekly Planning Schedule dated 29 April 2009 and have been referred to Planning Panel at the request of Councillor Graham Houston for the following reasons: The neighbouring proprietors may not have had sufficient time to respond with objections to the current scheme; The proposed building is finished with a glass roof whilst all others in the area have a slate roof; Access to the neighbouring property for essential repairs may not have been considered. 2 RECOMMENDATION(S) 2.1 To Approve these Applications subject to the Conditions attached as Appendix 1 to the report; 2.2 Application 08/00670/LBC requires referral to Historic Scotland since the proposals involve alterations to a category B Listed 3 CONSIDERATIONS The Site 3.1 The site is located at the western end of Park Terrace, in the Kings Park Conservation Area of Stirling. The dwelling occupies a principal corner plot within the streetscape, fronting both Park Terrace and Snowdon Place.

2 3.2 The site comprises a category B-Listed, Neo-Jacobean, 2-storey asymmetrical villa, finished in stone and slate and a detached garage. The property has been sub-divided into two separate dwellings. 3.3 The site has been constrained through the introduction of the neighbouring lounge window, which is located in the boundary wall that bounds the garden ground of 35 Park Terrace to the northeast. The result being that the external window of the neighbouring lounge, 35A Park Terrace, directly fronts the garden ground of 35 Park Terrace, which promotes direct overlooking to the garden ground of 35 Park Terrace and vice-versa to the Lounge of 35A Park Terrace. 3.4 The residents of 35A Park Terrace had previously addressed this privacy issue by placing an opaque film over the Lounge window, thus preventing overlooking to and from 35 Park Terrace. However, upon notification of the proposed scheme the opaque film was subsequently removed. The Proposal 3.5 The Applications for planning permission and listed building consent propose a single storey conservatory located to the rear, southeast, elevation of 35 Park Terrace and replacement window. 3.6 The proposed conservatory extension to the rear will be achieved by the removal of an existing canopy structure and associated historic patio. This development is an open structure, comprising a mono pitched, polycarbonate roof supported, largely, by four, 19 th century cast iron columns. The now dismantled historic patio, covering a footprint of 21sq.m, is constructed upon a stone base, creating a raised platform. 3.7 The conservatory will project 3750mm beyond the existing southeast elevation, reducing to 2604mm towards the neighbouring property boundary, where the elevation is recessed from the neighbouring window. The conservatory will measure 8560mm in width and 3650mm from the ground to its highest point, covering a development footprint of 27.5sqm, which will exceed the area of the historic patio by 7.2sq.m. 3.8 The proposed southeast elevation will project 1166mm beyond the point at which it adjoins the neighbouring boundary wall, extending 846mm beyond the neighbouring window. 3.9 The proposed conservatory will have a high transparency to solid ratio, the elevations will be constructed with glazed timber framed panels, these will be built off a stone base wall which will include the stone from the historic patio. The stone base wall will be of a consistent height reflecting that of the previous, whilst providing a foundation for the incorporation of the original columns into the structure. The conservatory will also have a glazed monopitched roof, retaining the form of the original canopy The proposal also includes the replacement of an existing upper level stair window, comprising of double doors and fanlights. The proposed replacement window is of a single pane fenestration, with oxford bead detailing.

3 Previous History 3.11 There is no previous history. Development Plan Policy 3.12 Policy H12 (a) of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 applies in this instance. Extensions to existing buildings reflect the guidance in the DAN House Extensions ; are sympathetic to the design, scale and massing of the original dwelling; and reflect the character of the area in general The Council s Adopted Guidance te on Daylight, Sunlight and Privacy states: Assessment Extensions should be designed to minimise the overshadowing of neighbouring properties. 25 degree approach should be utilised when the new development directly faces the affected window. Suitable daylight for habitable rooms is achieved when a 25 degree vertical angle line taken form the centre of the lowest window is kept unobstructed. Careful consideration must be given to issues of privacy and overlooking (in relation to neighbouring windows) The Applications have been subject to numerous revisions, which have been undertaken in order to improve the acceptability of the proposed scheme. The protracted process is a result of the complex nature of the Application caused by the sensitive and constrained characteristics of the site. In this instance, various schemes were submitted, each with the objective of according with conservation requirements as well as safeguarding residential amenity It is considered that the current scheme, has addressed all previous issues relating to design and residential amenity. The form, scale and massing of the proposed conservatory is acceptable, providing a proposal that is simplistic in appearance which reflects the form of the previous canopied development, thus preserving the character of the category B Listed The mono-pitched roof retains the character of the previous, whilst the re-use and integration of the original stone and historic cast iron columns provides a visual and historic connection to the original development The glazed mono-pitched roof has been highlighted as a concern. It has been suggested by Councillor Houston that the glazed roof may not be in keeping with the slate roofs that predominate the surrounding area. As the proposal involves the development of a conservatory, it is considered that a glazed roof is the most appropriate form of external treatment for this development. The glass roof, in conservation and design terms, is the most favourable finish in this instance, which is of a significantly higher quality than the polycarbonate panels that formed the original canopy. In addition, Historic Scotland did not raise any issues regarding this matter and therefore, it is considered that the proposed glazed roof is acceptable on design terms.

4 3.17 The proposal, to extend the dwelling beyond the neighbouring window has formed the basis of objection from the residents of 35A Park Terrace. The main concerns arising from the proposals, raised by the neighbouring residents, relate to loss of sunlight/daylight, privacy, overlooking, and the potential impact upon the character of the Listed 3.18 The 25 degree rule for measuring the impact on direct sunlight was applied; the results confirmed that suitable daylight levels shall be maintained for the neighbouring lounge as the 25 degree vertical line taken directly from the centre of the neighbouring window is kept unobstructed. It is therefore, considered that, although the proposed elevation appears intrusive on plan, the proposal will not adversely impact upon the current levels of direct sunlight or daylight currently received by the neighbouring property to form reasonable grounds for refusal The elevation that will front the neighbouring window has also raised objections with regard to loss of privacy and overlooking. The panels located within the recess will be constructed with opaque glazing which has been conditioned to remain in perpetuity. This will address any issues relating to loss of privacy or overlooking indefinitely. It is also considered that the use of opaque glazing within the recessed area of proposed development will maximise daylight The aspect of the neighbouring window is such that any external repair works to this window are required to be carried out from the garden ground of 35 Park Terrace. Councillor Houston has raised concerns regarding this issue, suggesting that essential repairs to this window may not have been considered. It is considered, however, that the form of the proposed development will not preclude repair works to this window; in addition, access to the neighbouring property for the undertaking of such works is a civil matter and does not form a material planning consideration It is considered that the proposed conservatory will preserve the character and integrity of the Listed Building and the Conservation Area to which it relates. This will be achieved without adversely impacting upon the amenity currently experienced by neighbouring residents in terms of privacy and sunlight/daylight. It is on this basis that the Application has been recommended for Approval. Objections a) The proposals are too large, they are too close to my property and in particular seriously affect privacy and daylight enjoyed by the only window I have into my lounge. I would refer you to your own Departments DAN notice Daylight, Sunlight and Privacy. Response: It is considered that the form, scale and massing of the proposed conservatory is sympathetic to the Listed Building to which it relates, this is a view shared by Historic Scotland and therefore, the application is considered acceptable on design grounds.

5 The elevation that fronts the neighbouring window passes the 25 degree approach for measuring the impact of sunlight loss, thus confirming that suitable daylight levels shall be maintained for the neighbouring Lounge, as the 25 degree vertical angle taken from the centre of the neighbouring window is kept unobstructed. It is, therefore, considered that the proposed conservatory will not lead to a significant material loss in the levels of daylight or direct sunlight currently experienced by 35A Park Terrace to reasonably form grounds for refusal. In addition, the proposed elevation that fronts the neighbouring window shall be constructed with opaque glazed panels, intended to increase daylight whilst serving to address any privacy issues regarding this proposal. Therefore, the proposed extension conforms to the Council s Development Advice te, Daylight, Sunlight and Privacy, and as such the application is acceptable on this basis. b) The raised plat outside the single door from the conservatory will cause overlooking and unacceptable loss of privacy. Response: The proposals have been amended; the single door, and associated steps have been removed. It is considered that this revision has addressed any issues relating to loss of privacy or overlooking. c) The s between the Planning Department and Historic Scotland stresses that the new conservatory would be built on the footprint of the existing patio. Clearly if you follow your own advice the revised proposal must be completely unacceptable as it does not follow this advice. Response: It is acknowledged that Officers and Historic Scotland favoured a scheme that was constructed over the footprint of the existing patio. However, the proposed conservatory has been amended significantly from the provisions of the original proposal, to which the above-mentioned correspondence relates. The current proposal is sympathetic to the building to which it relates, this has met with the approval of Historic Scotland and as such Officers are satisfied that the proposed conservatory respects the character and integrity of the Listed Building, and is, therefore, acceptable on design grounds. d) The drawing indicates the solid wall being built at right angles into the jamb of our window. At the very least where any new junction occurs with our house that all existing window jamb, lintel and sill stone is still visible. Response: The proposals have been amended, moving the point at which the proposed conservatory adjoins the neighbouring boundary wall off the jamb of the neighbouring window to the point at which the original canopy is located, this will preserve the existing window jamb, lintel and stone detailing. It is considered that this amendment has satisfactorily addressed this issue. e) In the original proposal the conservatory window looking directly into ours is approximately 4500mm away while in the amended proposal it is only 1500mm away. This is completely unacceptable.

6 Response: The previous scheme, which measured a distance of 1500mm away from the neighbouring window, was unacceptable as it contravened the Council s Guidance relating to Daylight/Sunlight as the conservatory, in its previous form, failed the 25 degree approach. The scheme was subsequently revised; the distance between the projecting elevations which will front the neighbouring window has been increased to 2076mm, in order to accord with the 25 degree approach. In addition, the proposed window fronting the neighbouring window will be opaque. It is considered therefore, that the proposed conservatory, in its current form, has addressed the previous concerns regarding overshadowing and loss of privacy, and is therefore acceptable. 4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS Policy Implications Diversity (age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) Corporate/Service Plan Existing Policy or Strategy Risk Resource Implications Financial People Land and Property or IT Systems Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes Policy Implications 4.1 Granting of Permission would comply with Development Plan Policy. Resource Implications 4.2 There are no resource implications. Consultations 4.3 Kings Park Community Council: Kings Park Community Council received consultation on 13 March 2009 and object to the proposal for the following reasons: a) The previous covered historic patio attached to this B Listed building has been demolished illegally without Planning or Listed Building Consent. Response: Although it is acknowledged that this action took place and an offence has been committed, it was not considered necessary to take action until the application had been determined.

7 b) The new footprint of the proposed conservatory greatly exceeds the original footprint of the previous covered historic patio. In an from Historic Scotland they state to ensure the special architectural character of the building, the footprint of the existing historic patio should be used as the basis for any proposed conservatory. Response: The above-mentioned correspondence referred to the original proposal. A revised scheme was submitted to the Planning Authority which Historic Scotland were formally consulted upon, they stated that In it s modified form the proposal would therefore retain the character of the Listed Building, it is therefore, considered that the current scheme has addressed the original concerns, and is acceptable on design terms. c) The plans state window unaffected by proposals and although not a planning matter, the neighbour s view from this window, their lounge window, is greatly compromised. Response: There is no right of view within Planning Legislation; therefore, the Application could not be refused on this basis. Furthermore, the proposal conforms to the 25 degree approach for measuring the impact of sunlight/daylight and does not raise any concerns with regards to privacy, therefore it is considered that the neighbouring window shall remain materially unaffected by the proposals. d) The previous covered patio line is set back from the window whereas the new plan is for the conservatory to abut the window thus affecting the architectural character of this B Listed Response: The proposals have been amended, the proposed conservatory shall be constructed off the neighbouring window, it is therefore, considered that this issue has been satisfactorily addressed. 4.4 Historic Scotland: 11/12/09 - The simple lean-to form of the existing canopy has a minimal impact on the garden elevation with its prominent gable. The proposed conservatory would extend further across the gable, impacting on the character of the category B Listed We would suggest to ensure the retention of the special architectural character of this elevation of the building, the established, historic footprint of the existing patio and associated canopy be used as the basis for any proposed conservatory. Consideration should also be given to retaining and reusing the existing cast-iron columns. 09/01/09 As shown, the revised proposals would appear to address the concerns that I had previously raised regarding the footprint, height and form of the conservatory along with the retention and reuse of the cast-iron columns. In its modified form the proposal would therefore retain the character of the Listed 26/03/09 - I suggested the cill level on the south elevation should be at a consistent height, and also that the line of the conservatory should be pulled back from the window of the adjoining property, perhaps to the line of the preexisting canopy as shown on the survey drawing. I consider this would represent a more sympathetic response to the character of this Listed

8 5 BACKGROUND PAPERS 5.1 Planning Application files 08/00670/LBC and 08/00673/HAE. Files can be viewed online at: LBC and HAE Author(s) Name Designation Tel /Extension Mark Laird Planning Officer Approved by Name Designation Signature Mick Stewart Head of Planning, Regulation and Economic Development Date 20 May 2009 Reference 08/00670/LBC

9 APPENDIX 1 PROPOSED CONSERVATORY AND WINDOW REPLACEMENT AT 35 PARK TERRACE, KINGS PARK, STIRLING, FK8 2JS - MR & MRS TROMBALA - 08/00670/LBC & 08/00673/HAE Subject to the following conditions preceded by Standard Condition 1 : 2 Compliance with Details: All works shall be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. 3 Details of Cast Iron Pillars: Details of the treatment of the existing cast iron pillars shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site. This will include details of corrosion protection, primer and finishing paint. In addition, the secret fixing details shall be submitted to and agreed with the Planning Authority. 4 Cast Iron Pillars: The cast iron pillars shall be maintained and protected to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Authority and shall remain in perpetuity. 5 New Stone Wall: All new stone shall be finished to match the masonry of the existing house in terms of block size, colour, appearance, tooling and method of construction and bedded and pointed with an appropriate mix of lime-only mortar, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. 6 Conservatory Frame: The conservatory frame, hereby granted consent, shall be fixed into mortar joints and not into the masonry. 7 Internal Works: All skirtings and aprons to dado and house wall fixing into exterior masonry, shall be fixed into the mortar joints only and not into the masonry. 8 Details of Steps: Details of steps shall be submitted to and Approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site. 9 Rainwater Goods: Details of the proposed rainwater goods shall be submitted to and Approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site. For the avoidance of doubt, all proposed rainwater goods shall be cast iron with a hand painted finish in an agreed colour to match the masonry of the building to which it relates, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. 10 External Wrought Iron Hand Rails: Details of the External wrought Iron Handrails shall be submitted to and Approved in writing prior to the commencement of works on site. 11 Opaque Windows: The opaque windows, as indicated within the drawings granted consent, shall remain in perpetuity. 12 Restriction on Construction Hours: machinery shall be operated, no activity carried out and no deliveries received at or despatched from the site outwith the hours of 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, and 9.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays; unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

10 Reasons: 2 To ensure that the overall development is undertaken in accordance with the approved drawings. 3 In order to ensure that this proposal respects the character of this Category B Listed 4 In order to ensure that this proposal respects the character of this Category B Listed 5 In order to ensure that this proposal respects the character of this Category B Listed 6 In order to ensure that this proposal respects the character of this Category B Listed 7 In order to ensure that this proposal respects the character of this Category B Listed 8 In order to ensure that this proposal respects the character of this Category B Listed 9 In order to ensure that this proposal respects the character of this Category B Listed 10 In order to ensure that this proposal respects the character of this Category B Listed 11 In order to safeguard the privacy of the neighbouring property. 12 To protect the occupants of nearby housing from excessive noise/disturbance associated with the implementation of this permission.

11

12

13