Two storey side and single storey rear extensions including a detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 September 2016 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 05 October 2016 Appeal Ref: APP/N1215/D/16/3154115 1 New Cottages, Marsh Lane, Anderson, Blandford Forum DT11 9HE  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mrs Rachel Martin against the decision of North Dorset District Council.  The application, Ref. 2/2016/0259/HOUSE, dated 29 January 2016, was refused by notice dated 15 April 2016.  The development proposed is two storey side and single storey rear extensions including a detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side and single storey rear extensions including a detached garage at 1 New Cottages, Marsh Lane, Anderson, Blandford Forum in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 2/2016/0259/HOUSE, dated 29 January 2016, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision; 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos. 15470 E; 15470 P; 15470 SG; 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building; 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 and the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 as amended (or any order revoking or re-enacting those Orders with or without modification) the development hereby approved shall only be used as ancillary accommodation in connection with the use of the main property as a single private dwellinghouse and shall at no time be converted to a self-contained living unit. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the extensions on the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding countryside. Appeal Decision APP/N1215/D/16/3154115 2 Reasons 3. The Council’s concern is mainly with the large scale of the proposed two storey side extension. This is not considered to be subservient to the host dwelling and would appear overbearing, especially in the approach from the east. 4. I can understand why the Council have come to this view, especially if the objective is one of preserving the character of the original semi-detached house with its modest size and simple design reflecting its origins of one half of two matching pairs of unassuming small rural dwellings. The smaller scale of the extension approved last year under permission reference 2/2015/1227/HOUSE is more successful in this regard than the scheme in this appeal. 5. However, the grounds for appeal have drawn my attention to the supporting text of Policy 24 of the North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 2016 (‘the Local Plan’) which emphasises the need to have regard to the site’s immediate surroundings as well as the wider landscape. In this respect it is clear that both this enclave of development in the open countryside as a whole and in particular the two pairs of semi-detached houses (Nos. 1 & 2 and 3 & 4) strongly inform any proposal for additional development. 6. Leaving aside the substantial visual impact of Mona Vale, a large detached house, the submitted Drawing No. ‘15470 Street’ of the existing and proposed north elevations (the view from Marsh Lane) shows that Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have all had first floor extensions, with the addition to No. 4 being the largest. The combined effect of these is that the simple character and modest scale of the original buildings of Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has largely already been lost. In my view the appellant has presented a plausible case that the current proposal would provide an element of continuity and balance when the two pairs of semi- detached dwellings are read together, as for the most part they would be by passers by. 7. Furthermore, although I acknowledge that the extension to No. 4 was approved over a decade ago and was not therefore subject to current policies, the appeal scheme compares favourably to it. The addition would have a narrower width, smaller dormers, and with the absence of a covered porch and garage door a front elevation more in keeping with the original dwelling. As regards the Council’s objection to the view in the approach from the east, I do not consider that perceptions of the extended building in the oblique views from the road would be materially different from those of the approved scheme, which although of lower height is also two storey and of the same depth into the rear garden. 8. Overall, I consider that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding countryside in harmful conflict with Local Plan Policies 24 and 25. The Notice of Refusal also refers to paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (‘the Framework’), but because I consider the design to be acceptable I do not consider this to be applicable. 9. On the other hand the Framework is relevant in other respects. Section 6 requires the planning system to deliver a wide range of high quality homes, whilst paragraph 186 says that Local Planning Authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable Appeal Decision APP/N1215/D/16/3154115 3 development. I do appreciate that these objectives are more strategic in nature than, as in this case, the application of development management to individual properties. 10. Nonetheless, the existing property clearly requires modernisation and extension to provide modern day living standards for ‘a growing family’ as referred to in the grounds for appeal, and as an existing resource its more effective use through implementation of the appeal scheme would bring about social and economic benefits whilst at the same time being acceptable in environmental terms. 11. In allowing the appeal I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans to avoid uncertainty. A condition requiring matching external materials will ensure that the extensions harmonise with the existing building, albeit that this does not preclude the repainting of the render to a more suitable colour. 12. The Council has also suggested a condition precluding the subsequent sub- division of the extended property into two separate dwellings. There is an argument that given the nature and form of the application this is unnecessary, but on balance I consider that it would provide clarity of the need for compliance with Local Plan Polices 20 and 28 for the protection of the open countryside. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR