Two-storey side extension to provide additional living accommodation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 November 2016 by J L Cheesley BA(Hons) DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16 November 2016 Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/D/16/3154849 2 Recreation Cottages, Toppesfield Road, Great Yeldham, Halstead, Essex CO9 4HD  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 Mr and Mrs R May against the decision of Braintree District Council.  The application Ref 16/00543/FUL was refused by notice dated 25 May 2016.  The development proposed is a two-storey side extension to provide additional living accommodation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a small semi-detached cottage. This pair of dwellings has a characteristic symmetry with single-storey side extensions and compact traditional design. 4. Policy CS5 in the Braintree District Council Core Strategy (2011) seeks to strictly control uses appropriate to the countryside. Policy RLP 2 in the Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005), states that countryside policies apply to development outside village envelopes. Policy RLP 18 seeks to ensure, amongst other matters, that extensions to dwellings in the countryside are compatible with the scale and character of the existing dwelling and are subservient in terms of bulk, height, width and position. Policy RLP 90 seeks a high standard of layout and design for all new development. 5. I consider the policies referred to above are broadly in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework as far as they meet the Framework’s core principles; particularly that planning should be taking account of the different roles and character of an area and be seeking to ensure high quality design. 6. The appeal dwelling and area for the proposed extension are situated just outside the Great Yeldham development boundary, with part of the garden Appeal Decision APP/Z1510/D/16/3154849 2 situated within this boundary. As the area upon which the extension is proposed lies within the countryside, I consider it appropriate to determine the proposal in accordance with the above development plan policies. 7. The proposal includes alterations to the existing single-storey side extension, providing a link to a two-storey side extension. This two-storey part of the proposal would be some 6.3 metres in width and would be lower in height than the existing main part of the cottage. The existing two-storey part of the cottage is some 5.5 metres in width. From my observations, due to the width and bulk of the proposed extension, it would appear as an unacceptably large and dominant addition which would overwhelm the scale of the existing cottage. This would not be a subservient addition in terms of bulk and width. 8. The proposed extension would include timber boarding and a prominent large glazed gable end. Whilst having the appearance of a converted traditional barn, it would not be in keeping with the traditional cottage character and traditional small scale design of the existing cottage. As such, I consider the proposed extension would appear as an incongruous addition. 9. In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised, including the need for additional living accommodation for the appellant’s family. Whilst I sympathise with this situation, I have found in the wider public interest. In addition, I have taken into consideration examples of other developments within the village. Whilst I note similarity in the use of materials, none of the examples is directly comparable to the proposal before me. 10. For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. This would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS5 and Local Plan Policies RLP 2, RLP 18 and RLP 90. J L Cheesley INSPECTOR