Proposed single storey front and rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 March 2017 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20th March 2017 Appeal Reference: APP/D3505/D/17/3167168 ‘Orchard Cottage’, Newman’s Green, Acton CO10 0AB  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 G Powis against the decision of Babergh District Council.  The application (reference B/16/01236/FHA/AT, dated 5 September 2016) was refused by notice dated 1 December 2016.  The development proposed is described in the application form as “proposed single storey front and rear extensions”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey front and rear extensions at ‘Orchard Cottage’, Newman’s Green, Acton CO10 0AB, in accordance with the terms of the application (reference B/16/01236/FHA/AT, dated 5 September 2016), subject to the following conditions. 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: drawing number 427.16.01 – Existing Floor and Site Plans, Plus Elevations; drawing number 427.16.02D – Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations, Plus Site and Location Plans. 3. No development shall take place until samples (or specifications) of the materials and drawings (at appropriate scales) of the construction details to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the new development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, using the approved materials. Main issue 2. The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character of the host building and its surroundings. Reasons 3. Newman’s Green is a small hamlet in a rural and predominantly agricultural landscape, separated from Acton itself by an area of arable land. ‘Orchard Appeal Decision: APP/D3505/D/17/3167168 2 Cottage’ is one of a number of properties that are set along the southern frontage of the road that runs east-west through the settlement. It is an attractive house in a traditional style, with rendered walls under a main pitched roof, and it is attached to another house, ‘Greenways’, that shares the same style. At the rear, the rear parts of the two properties interlock in an unusual way, with overhanging eaves. Both buildings have been altered over the years. 4. The current proposals would involve the construction of a modest extension to the front of ‘Orchard Cottage’, to provide a new porch and to enable a larger “WC” and cloakroom to be constructed within the existing porch. A larger extension would be added at the rear of the house, removing an existing conservatory and creating an open dining and kitchen area. 5. Among other things, the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “requiring good design” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 7) and it points out the importance of maintaining the overall quality of the area. 6. An emphasis on the importance of good design is also to be found in the Development Plan, notably at Policies CN01 and HS33 of the ‘Babergh Local Plan Alteration No. 2’. Policy CN01 deals with design issues generally and points out the need for new development to relate to its location. Policy HS33 specifically relates to the design of house extensions and, again, notes the significance of the relationship between the extension, its host building and their wider setting. 7. In this case, the proposed extensions have been designed generally to reflect the character of the existing house (and its neighbour), using similar materials but incorporating significant areas of glass in recognition of the practical uses of the new porch and the dining-kitchen area. Nevertheless, the proposed rear extension would incorporate a flat-roofed area (with an “internal gutter”), in order to adapt to the roofs of the existing buildings, including the rear part of the neighbouring house. 8. The design of the proposed extension would reflect the character of its host building and would be in harmony with its surroundings, in spite of the uncharacteristic section of flat roof that would be created at the rear of the property. The submitted drawings are not fully detailed for construction purposes but the specification of the proposed materials and the details of the construction (include the detail of the “internal gutter”) can properly be controlled by conditions. The proposed extensions would have no material effect on neighbours’ living conditions and, although there may be other solutions available for the resolution of the party wall details, they would create a reasonably harmonious design. The project is not objectionable in planning terms and it would accord with both national and local planning policies, including Policies CN01 and HS33 of the Local Plan. 9. The appeal scheme would provide modest extensions to the front and rear of the existing dwelling and it would provide useful additional space. I have concluded that the project would not be in conflict with the national legislation or the Development Plan, in principle, and that it is acceptable in planning terms. In short, I am persuaded that the scheme before me can properly be permitted and, although I have considered all the matters that have been Appeal Decision: APP/D3505/D/17/3167168 3 raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. 10. I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and, in doing so, I have taken account of the conditions suggested by the Council in the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal). I have concluded that conditions are necessary, to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained. Roger C Shrimplin INSPECTOR