Single storey front extension and a part two storey and a part single storey side extension
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Residential Amenity
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 19 December 2016
by Grahame Gould BA MPhil MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 10th January 2017
Appeal Ref: APP/C1760/D/16/3161650
7 Knyght Close, Romsey SO51 5UX
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 Alex Baker against the decision of Test Valley Borough
Council.
The application Ref 16/01788/FULLS, dated 22 July 2016, was refused by notice dated
22 September 2016.
The development proposed is a single storey front extension and a part two storey and
a part single storey side extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey
front extension and a part two storey and a part single storey side extension
at 7 Knyght Close, Romsey SO51 5UX in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref 16/01788/FULLS, dated 22 July 2016, subject to the following
conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: 100 – Site Location Plan;
101 – Ground Floor Plan Existing; 102 - First Floor Plan Existing;
103 – Roof Plan Existing; 120 – Block Plan Existing; 150 – Front
Elevation Existing; 151 – Rear Elevation Existing; 152 – Side Elevation
01 Existing; 153 – Side Elevation 02 Existing, 200 - Block Plan Proposed;
201 – Ground Floor Plan Proposed; 202 Revision 05 – First Floor Plan
Proposed; 203 – Roof Plan Proposed; 250 – Front Elevation Proposed;
251 – Rear Elevation Proposed; 252 Revision 05 – Side Elevation 01
Proposed; and 253 - Side Elevation 02 Proposed.
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 (or any order revoking
and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no
windows, including dormer windows, other than those shown on the
drawings hereby permitted shall be inserted into the eastern elevation
of the two storey side extension.
Appeal Decision APP/C1760/D/16/3161650
2
Application for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mr Alex Baker against Test Valley
Borough Council. That application is the subject of a separate decision.
Procedural Matter
3. The application was amended prior to its determination by the Council, with a
window in the first floor side elevation having been deleted. That amendment
is shown on drawings 202 Revision 05 (first floor plan [proposed]) and
252 Revision 05 (side elevation 01 [proposed]) and I have therefore had
regard to those amended plans in reaching my decision.
Main Issue
4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and
appearance of 7 Knyght Close (No 7) and Knyght Close.
Reasons
5. The development would involve the construction of a part single and a part
two storey side extension (the side extension) and a single storey front
extension. The Council has raised no objection to the scale or appearance of
the front extension and I see no reason to take a contrary view. My
reasoning below therefore relates to the side extension.
6. Although the side extension would significantly elongate No 7’s front and rear
elevations and add mass to this property I consider the mixed roof forms,
hipped end with front gable for the two storey element and mono-pitch to the
single storey element, would provide interest and help to limit the mass of
No 7 as extended. I therefore find that the side extension would not be an
incongruous addition to No 7 and would be respectful of the character and
appearance of this property.
7. While the side extension would be a comparatively large addition and the
north eastern corners of both of its single and two storey elements would be
hard up against the boundary No 7 shares with the rear gardens of 23 and
25 Wills Way, this addition would not have a prominent siting within the
streetscene. That is because No 7 occupies a corner position within a
cul-de-sac spur, with the result that only very oblique views of the side
extension would be possible in the space between Nos 7 and 8.
8. Some views of the side extension would be possible via the gap between
Nos 9 and 10, however, those views would be quite distant and I consider
that from this vantage point the development would not have a domineering
presence.
9. For the reasons given above I conclude that the side extension would not be
harmful to the character or appearance of No 7 or Knyght Close. Accordingly
there would be no conflict with Policy E1 of the Test Valley Borough Revised
Local Plan of 2016 because the development would integrate well with and
thus be respectful of its surroundings.
Other Matters
10. The rear elevations and gardens of various properties in Wills Way back onto
the side elevation of No 7. While the side extension would be visible to the
Appeal Decision APP/C1760/D/16/3161650
3
occupiers of the houses in Wills Way, I find that the degree of physical
separation would be such that this addition would not have an overbearing
presence when viewed by the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. I am
also of the view that the scale and orientation of the side extension relative to
the houses in Wills Way would be such that there would be no unacceptable
overshadowing of those properties. I am therefore content that there would
be no harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the houses in Wills
Way.
Conditions
11. Apart from the standard time limit condition, I find it necessary that the
development should be built to accord with the submitted plans for certainty
and be constructed with external materials matching those of No 7, in the
interests of the appearance of the area. I have therefore imposed conditions
that address those matters.
12. To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in
Wills Way it is necessary that the permitted developments rights, allowing
additional windows to be installed in the eastern elevation (including its roof)
of the two storey side extension, are removed. I have therefore imposed a
condition to this effect.
13. The Council’s fifth suggested condition would require that on-site parking be
available prior to the occupation of the extensions. However, I consider that
the imposition of such a condition is unnecessary because No 7 already has
off-street parking available to it, which would be unaffected by the
development.
Conclusion
14. For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed and planning permission is
granted.
Grahame Gould
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 19 December 2016
by Grahame Gould BA MPhil MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 10th January 2017
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/C1760/D/16/3161650
7 Knyght Close, Romsey SO51 5UX
The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
The application is made by Mr Alex Baker for a full award of costs against Test Valley
Borough Council.
The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a single storey front
extension and a part two storey and a part single storey side extension.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) advises that costs may be awarded
against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party
applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal
process.
3. The application for costs has been made on a substantive basis. The applicant
contends that the Council acted unreasonably in refusing planning permission
because when Members of its Planning Committee determined the planning
application they disregarded the officer recommendation and their
deliberations did not justify the refusal of planning permission.
4. The Council’s case relies wholly on the reason for refusal, which I consider is
expressed in vague terms, with the committee minute that has been
submitted not elaborating on the alleged harm identified by the Members of
the Planning Committee. While Members of the Planning Committee are not
bound by their officers’ recommendation, their reasons for refusal, especially
when making decisions that are contrary to an officer recommendation, need
to clearly substantiate why a development would be harmful.
5. The reason for refusal alleges that the side extension would be ‘incongruous’
and would fail to integrate with, respect or complement the character and
appearance of 7 Knyght Close (No 7) or the area. However, because of No 7’s
position within Knyght Close only oblique and/or distant views of the side
extension would be possible within this street and consequently, in
determining the appeal, I have found that this addition would not be an
incongruous one.
6. The appealed application was the third made by the applicant and it is clear
from the officer’s report that the size and design of the side extension had
Costs Decision APP/C1760/D/16/3161650
2
been subject to amendment, with those revisions being the product of an
iterative process, culminating in the favourable officer recommendation. It
appears that the Members of the Planning Committee paid very limited regard
to either the contextual information relating to the location and design of the
side extension contained in the officer report or the professional assessment
that gave rise to the recommendation that planning permission should be
granted.
7. I have concluded that in the absence of harm to the character and appearance
of either No 7 or Knyght Close that there would be no conflict with the Test
Valley Borough Revised Local Plan of 2016. The Council’s decision has not
stood up to scrutiny on the planning merits of the case and the development
should reasonably have been permitted. The refusal of planning permission
therefore amounted to unreasonable behaviour, contrary to the guidance in
paragraph 49 of the PPG, in that the Council has failed to produce evidence to
substantiate the reason for refusal and in so doing prevented development
that would accord with the development plan and that should have been
permitted.
8. I therefore conclude that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or
wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has been demonstrated and that a
full award of costs is justified.
Costs Order
9. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act
1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended,
and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Test
Valley Borough Council shall pay Mr Alex Baker, the costs of the appeal
proceedings described in the heading of this decision.
10. The applicant is now invited to submit to Test Valley Borough Council, to whom
a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to
reaching agreement as to the amount. In the event that the parties cannot
agree on the amount, a copy of the guidance note on how to apply for a
detailed assessment by the Senior Courts Costs Office is enclosed.
Grahame Gould
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.