Residential Amenity. The applicants reside at Xxxxxxxxxx House and it is their intention to retain this property to help with the operation of the holiday park. This dwelling is therefore classed as an ‘interested property’ in terms of the developments potential impact. The dwelling occupies an elevated position at the eastern side of the site and is partly enclosed by a mature planting belt which is to be retained. It is not judged that the proposed layout would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of this dwelling house. Two residential properties are located approximately 50m away from the nearest lodges to the north of the site at Nunlands. The buildings at Nunlands occupy higher ground level than the application site. The existing robust xxxxxx which stands between 8 – 12ft which encloses the north of the site and mature planting in the foreground of Nunlands already provides a significant barrier to help screen southward views of the development from Nunlands. These existing boundary enclosures will be increased by the structure planting which is proposed along the northern boundary of the site. The lodges and their decks are angled away from these properties to the north. The dwellings located to the south will remain separated from the development by the mature woodland to the south of the Wild Fowl Lake. The proposals have been considered against the recommendations contained within the Council’s SPG on Privacy and Sunlight. It is found that the distance between the lodges and neighbouring residential properties coupled with the retention of the existing planting ensure that these proposals will not give rise to any detrimental levels of overlooking and does not affect access to light or sunlight for existing neighbours. At the time of writing the report no concerns have been raised by the EHO with regard to noise. The use of the proposed site as a holiday park is not considered to generate a noise nuisance which would be required to be controlled by a planning condition. Instead this would fall to be a management issue by the applicants to ensure that users of their development are not causing any unsuitable disruption which may adversely affected surrounding neighbours. If there were to be complaints with regards to noise and any other nuisances such as litter etc. these matters could be pursued by relevant provisions within environmental health legislation. Flooding Policy ED8 explicitly requires that new caravan sites are developed in locations which ...
Residential Amenity. Policy ED9 requires the impacts on communities and individual dwellings (including noise impacts) to be considered with Policy 11 of NPF4 seeking impact on amenity to be addressed by the project design and mitigation. Policy HD3 states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential areas will not be permitted and Policy 23 (Health and safety) of NPF4 seeking to guard against developments which pose unacceptable noise issues. The closest neighbouring residential properties lie to the south on the opposite side of the public road. The development will not pose any adverse impacts on the visual amenity of these dwellinghouses. A Noise Impact Assessment has been carried out which has considered noise impact from the operation of the equipment on neighbouring residential properties. The noise assessment concludes that the development will not generate noise levels to the detriment of residential amenity of neighbouring properties. A planning condition is recommended to control noise levels of all plant and machinery. Flood Risk and Hydrology Policy ED9 and IS8 of the LDP and Policy 11 of NPF4 requires consideration of the effect of renewable energy development on hydrology and flood risk. The Eccles Burn and a tributary of the Xxxxxxx'x Xxxxx are located approximately 250m to the north and 180m to the northwest of the application site. SEPA flood mapping confirms that the site is outside of areas of flood risk associated with these watercourses. There is no evidence to suggest that the development poses any flooding concerns. The development creates a sizeable area of hard surface which will generate surface water. Policies IS9 of the LDP and Policy 22 (Flood risk and water management) seek for surface water to be handled through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). It will be important that surface water does not impact on the public road. Agreement of a detailed drainage layout, in accordance with SUDS principle can be agreed by planning condition. Ecology The proposal has to be assessed against policies EP1, EP2 and EP3 of the LDP and Policy 3 of NPF4 which seek to protect international and national nature conservation sites, protected species and habitats from development. The site is not located with or in close proximity to any designated ecological sites. A Preliminary Ecological Assessment has been carried out which identifies there is no evidence of any protected species within the application site. There ...
Residential Amenity. 7.9 In terms of residential impact, the removal of the age restriction is not considered to result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers, or neighbouring amenity. Parking Provision and Access
Residential Amenity. Policy 7.6 of The London Plan (2011) states that “Buildings and structures should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate”. Saved policy C7 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan and in particular paragraph 9.29 suggests that new development must not be detrimental to the environmental quality of the locality or the amenities of the residents. Policy 1 of the Draft Development Management DPD Policies (2012) states that “The assessment of the design and layout of proposals will have regard to: “the massing, bulk, scale and height pf proposed buildings in relation to the location , the surroundings and any impact on neighbouring occupiers”. Amenity impacts in relation to scale, massing and siting It is acknowledged that the new and modified buildings would have a greater scale and mass than the existing single and two storey structures of the school. Moreover, due to the siting of the proposed two storey junior school on the northern side of the site, the building would be marginally closer to neighbouring residential properties when compared to the existing two storey junior block on the site which is located between approximately 33 and 37 metres away from the rear elevations of the nearest residential properties along Dorchester Avenue. The change in the relationship of the proposed school buildings would be most obvious for the group of two storey properties, Xx’x 0- 00 Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, as their rear elevations would face directly towards the western elevation of the 2 storey junior classroom block. As mentioned previously, the western elevation of the proposed new building would be sited away from the closest properties in Dorchester Avenue (between 28.8 and 30 metres) and the main teaching block on this side of the building would also be between 28.5 and 33 metres from these properties. The closest properties adjacent to the northern boundary of the site along Blenheim Road are sited a similar distance away, some 31 to 34 metres, but would have a different relationship with the building as the flank northern elevation of the building which would be closest spans a smaller distance and properties along Blenheim Road are also sited at an oblique angle which would help reduce the visual impact of the proposal. Currently the properties surrounding the north western boundary of the site have a view across the playing f...
Residential Amenity. Policy 7.6.B of The London Plan (2011) states that new buildings and structures should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate. Saved policy D5 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan similarly seeks to ensure that the amenities and privacy of neighbouring occupiers is not adversely affect by development. In terms of overbearing or overshadowing impacts, given the distance of the extensions, enlargements and alterations proposed here, it is considered that the built form of development would not adversely impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. In terms of overlooking, the impact of the proposed development are very much similar to those considered in the previous applications. In terms of overlooking from internal areas of the property, it is considered that unreasonable impacts would not arise from the development. As alluded to above, the terrace area at the southern end of the dwellinghouse does permit a degree of overlooking into the rearmost part of the neighbouring rear garden at Edgehill. The occupier of that property has made representations on the matter of overlooking that the application seeks to address through the provision of a solid wall parapet at the edge of the terrace area, instead of the more open structure previously approved to enclose the terrace area. This would serve to reduce the scope for overlooking from this area to persons standing close to the edge of the terrace. As such, it is considered that the development would not result in unacceptable levels of overlooking of the neighbouring property. Accordingly, it is considered that the development would accord with policy 7.6.B of The London Plan 2011 and saved policy D5 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan 2004 which seek to ensure neighbouring amenities and privacy are maintained.
Residential Amenity. Impact of the extension on Neighbouring Amenity The previous proposal for this site included a deeper extension (by 3m) at first and second floor levels at both Xx. 0 xxx Xx. 0 Xxx Xxxxxxxx. The Inspector, in dismissing the appeal, considered that these extensions would be overbearing when viewed from Roxeth Green House. The current proposal has a more modest first floor extension. This design has overcome the Inspector’s concerns regarding the overbearing impact of the extensions. Given the scale, siting and design of the proposed extensions, the only adjacent properties likely to be affected by the impact of the proposed extensions are the upper floor occupiers of Roxeth House. With respect to the rear of this property, the single and two-storey extensions at the application site would not interrupt either a horizontal or vertical 45 degree splay as described in paragraphs 6.28 – 6.32 of the Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010), and the previous reason for refusal No. 2 of permission P/2760/12. Given the separation between the application site and the flats to the north, it is considered that the proposal would have a minimal impact with respect to these properties. This is in line with the Inspector's conclusions in the previous appeal at the site. Room Size and Layout Each of the studio flats and one-bedroom flats exceed the minimum space standards required by policy 3.5 of The London Plan and are considered acceptable in this regard. The previous scheme was dismissed as some of the then-proposed studio flats would have had poor outlook from flank walls only, or restricted outlook from small windows. The current design has residential units with primary windows on the front and rear elevations.
Residential Amenity. It is considered that the proposed development, would not result in significant harm to the amenities of adjoining occupiers in terms of daylight/sunlight, over-shadowing, and privacy. Although there are recorded incidences whereby the impacts exceed the BRE technical guide for daylight and sunlight, there are very few overall transgressions and the extent of level changes are moderate at worst and can be mitigated at the detailed stage. It is considered that the proposals, have been designed so that they do not unduly prejudice the development potential of the adjoining sites, including the adjoining White City Living development which have the capacity to contribute towards the comprehensive regeneration of the Opportunity Area, by virtue of the extent of the daylight, sunlight, overshadowing and privacy impacts. With regards to noise and privacy impacts, the proposals are acceptable on the basis that planning conditions are secured to limit the additional impacts to arise out of the development, including those during construction and demolition phases. Potential impacts in terms of air quality, light pollution, solar glare, wind tunnelling and TV/radio reception would be acceptable, subject to the various mitigation methods proposed which are secured by conditions. In this regard, the development would respect the principles of good neighbourliness. The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable and would be in accordance with policies 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 7.1, 7.3, 7.6, 7.7, 7.14 and 7.15 of the London Plan (2016), Local Plan policies HO11, DC1, DC2, DC3, CC10, CC11, CC12 and CC13 and the Council's Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2018 and White City Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2013).
