Side extension and dormer at Crows Nest, 98 Wellington Parade, Walmer

What was proposed

The application sought a side catslide extension, new entrance, roof dormer, raised rear deck and stair, and replacement windows.

“25/00400 – Erection of side catslide extension with new entrance, side roof dormer, and raised rear deck and stair from upper to lower ground/garden level; Replacement windows – Crow’s Nest, 98 Wellington Parade, Walmer…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a detached early twentieth-century dwelling on a sloping plot, with a rear annexe and gardens beside other detached homes.

“The site comprises a predominantly two-storey detached, early 20th century dwelling which has a pitched main roof with front gable, and is hipped to the rear. There is also a two-storey rear extension with a pitched roof. There are small pitched roof dormers which project just above the eaves to either side of the main roof and a single-storey, pitched roof porch to the southern (side) elevation with concrete steps for access to the front door.”

“The site is arranged with a small, grassed garden to the front in between a parking area and side driveway which passes to the rear of the dwelling through a wooden, five-bar gate. The dwelling has a long rear garden, which contains a single-storey annexe/holiday let building with a pitched roof, white rendered walls and a tiled roof.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions covered extensions to an outbuilding for a dependent relative and its later change to a holiday let.

“DOV/16/01471 Granted - Erection of single storey extensions to outbuilding to form a self-contained annexe for a dependent relative…”

“DOV/24/01204 Granted - Change of use of annexe to holiday let…”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers found the design appropriate, with no heritage or flood impact and no residential amenity harm subject to a privacy screen.

“Visual Amenity of the Area 2.6 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF sets out that planning decisions should ensure that development functions well and adds to the overall quality of the area, and are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment, whilst not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change.”

“Conclusion 3.1 The proposal by virtue of its design, siting, scale, and materials would be appropriate to the context of the area and in accordance with all the requirements of policies PM1 and H6. There would be no impact on Non-Designated Heritage Assets and no harm to residential amenity subject to the securing of a suitable privacy screen to the rear deck by condition. The development would have no impact on flood risk.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Senior Planner presented the proposal, Councillor Vinson described correspondence with a neighbour, and Councillor Back proposed approval.

Committee discussion

Members discussed spacing, privacy, heritage, maintenance, construction access and whether obscure glazing or louvres should be required.

“In response to the Chairman, the Senior Planner clarified that the Council’s Heritage Officer had advised that no. 100 was a non-designated heritage asset because it had been designed by a known architect. The proposed extension would be in keeping with the character of the area given that some neighbouring properties had also extended up to their boundaries, and no harm would be caused to the significance of no. 100.”

“The Senior Planner responded that amended drawings had shown the use of obscure glazing which officers had considered unnecessary due to the alignment of windows and the stairwell not being habitable space. He explained that it would generally only be habitable rooms within a house and private garden amenity space that would be protected when considering loss of privacy.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application with conditions for timing, approved plans, a rear privacy screen and obscure dormer glazing.

“RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/25/00400 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:”

“(iii) Privacy screen to north of rear balcony;”

Minutes