Planning Applications - Runnymede Borough Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3. Application 3.1 The proposal is for full planning permission for the erection of a detached garage to the rear of the property and alterations to an existing outbuilding. Work has commenced on the garage but has since stopped on officer advice. 3.2 The treble garage would be sited at the north-east corner of the site within a walled compound, alongside the existing TASIS wall and the wall that separates parking from the garden. 3.3 The garage would have a maximum width of 11.9 metres with a depth of 5 metres. Its height would be 3.8 metres to the ridge. 3.4 The garage’s frame would be constructed with Oak posts and struts and the external materials would be second-hand face brick plinth, black stained feather-edged horizontal boarding and second-hand plain clay tiled roof. 3.5 The refurbished outbuilding, located at the southern end of the walled compound, would have face brick walls and plain clay tiled roof. 4. Consultations 4.1 The application was publicly advertised in the local press and five individual letters of notification were sent out to neighbouring properties. No letters of representation have been received. 4.2 The County Highways Authority has no requirements to make. 4.3 The County Archaeology Department has no objection, as the proposal would only cause minor new ground disturbance. 4.4 The Council’s Conservation Advisor considers the proposal to be sensitively designed whose materials would complement the main listed house. 5. Planning Considerations 5.1 The main issues to consider are the impact of the proposed garage on the rural settlement, which is required to have special regard to the impact on the Listed Building and Thorpe Conservation Area and the impact of the proposal on residential amenities. There is no objection to the refurbishment of the existing outbuilding. 5.2 Policy GB2 only permits development in the rural settlement of Thorpe where it is on land substantially surrounded by existing development and does not detract from the character of the settlement or surrounding area. This proposal is considered to accord with the intent of this policy because it would be located at a central point of the village surrounded by built development. It would also be sited in a relatively discreet location and be at a scale, particularly in respect of its height, that would not make it overtly prominent or visually intrusive so as to detract from the established character of the area.
5.3 The treble garage would however be a large structure with a floor area of some 59 sq metres but despite its size it is not considered to represent over development of the site or result in cramped built form. Whilst the treble garage would be above the Council’s adopted maximum parking standards (October 2001) of two parking spaces for dwellings, it is not considered that the application could be refused on these grounds alone. Furthermore, the Highways Authority has no objection. 5.4 Policy BE5 requires that development within a Conservation Area preserves or enhances its character or appearance of such areas with proposals needing to respect the scale, height, materials and architectural details of the area. Policy BE9 reiterates policy BE5 specifically ensuring that proposals pay special regard to safeguarding the special architectural or historic interest of a listed building and preserve its setting. 5.5 Although the garage is a large structure the development is still considered to be subservient at a scale that is considered not to detract from the setting of the Grade II Listed Building and the architectural and historic features that it possesses. The proposed detailing and materials would be appropriate to the character of the building. The Council’s Conservation Advisor also considers that the proposal would complement the main listed building. As explained at paragraph 5.2, the development is considered not to be incongruous in its setting and would therefore preserve the character of the Conservation Area. 5.6 The proposal is considered to cause no adverse harm to residential amenities due to its intended use, boundary screening and discreet siting close to the boundaries with the adjoining school campus. 5.7 The overall proposal complies with the plan policies. Consideration has been given to the requirements of Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. Officers’ Recommendation GRANT subject to the following conditions: 1. Duration (Other than Outline) (C3) 2. No Departure (Full Applications) (C4) 3. External Materials (Submission of Details/Samples) (C29) 4. Restriction of Garages etc to Private Vehicles/Storage (C56) - ‘treble garage’
Page 1 and 2: PLANNING COMMITTEE 21ST MAY 2003 WA
Page 3 and 4: 3.1 Brooklands has a long and compl
Page 5 and 6: 4.8 The ES has since been supplemen
Page 7 and 8: Flooding Issues 6.12 The site lies
Page 9 and 10: 5. Planning Considerations 5.1 The
Page 11 and 12: RU.03/0189 Date reg: 18/02/2003 War
Page 13 and 14: 4.5 No adverse comments have been r
Page 15 and 16: Informatives: 1. The applicant is a
Page 17 and 18: 3.1 This is a full application for
Page 19 and 20: combination of the location, the te
Page 23 and 24: Drawing Number: Date Received: 1059
Page 25 and 26: • The side extension would be uns
Page 29 and 30: 5.3 The terrace is two-storey with
Page 33 and 34: 5. Planning Considerations 5.1 The
Page 35 and 36: 2. Duration (Outline) (C2) - "(a) a
Page 37 and 38: oundary of the site in order to see
Page 39 and 40: 5.2 Development within the Green Be
Page 43 and 44: • Cannot see what has changed for
Page 45 and 46: was connected to the public sewer i
Page 47 and 48: 2. The site lies on the edge of the
Page 49 and 50: 4.3 The County Highways Authority h
Page 51: RU.03/0358 Date reg: 31/03/2003 War

Planning Applications - Runnymede Borough Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?