First floor extension together with internal and elevation alterations, to provide an additional bedroom with en suite. Retrospective application for gate post associated with previous application DC/15/1594

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 March 2017 by Timothy C King BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 3 April 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/Z3825/D/17/3167435 Littlehaven Cottage, Rusper Road, Horsham, RH12 5QW  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 & Mrs Barry Steers against the decision of Horsham District Counccil.  The application Ref DC/16/2191, dated 28 September 2016, was refused by notice dated 15 November 2016.  The development proposed is ‘First floor extension together with internal and elevation alterations, to provide an additional bedroom with en suite. Retrospective application for gate post associated with previous application DC/15/1594.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The Council has raised objections only in respect of the proposed first floor extension. There is no objection from the Council regarding the gate post erected, and I agree with this approach. As such, I will limit my assessment to that of the planning merits, or otherwise, of the proposed extension. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and also its surrounding area. Reasons 4. Littlehaven Cottage, a two-storey dwelling that has previously been extended, sits adjacent to the railway land and the associated level crossing beyond on Rusper Road. Given the general lie of the land there is a feel of openness and the dwelling and its attached single-storey garage are visible from several vantage points. At present the garage addition, although sited forward of the dwelling’s frontage, relates well to the dwelling both in terms of a proportionate and complimentary design. The proposal would involve building above the garage, with some additional first floor infill, overlain with a gabled roof. 5. Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) requires that the scale, massing and appearance of new development should be to a high standard of design, relating sympathetically to the built environment. The Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/D/17/3167435 2 appellants are of the view that the proposed development would satisfy this requirement and refers to the extension being a mirror image of an earlier extension to the dwelling. I disagree as, whilst the poposed extension’s profile might be similar, the introduction of an additional physical element, as is here proposed, due to its length, height and extent, would represent a form of development that would show little, if any subordination, to the existing dwelling. Indeed, from the submitted plans, which include three dimensional images of the proposed development, I consider it would appear as an imposition and, being sited significantly forward of the host dwelling’s frontage, its bulk would give rise to a marked visual conflict with the dwelling. This impact would be particularly apparent when viewed from the street, travelling southwards along Rusper Road. 6. The appellants refer to the fact that The Council received no objections from those notified of the proposal. This might be the case, and I am also of the opinion that there would be no consequential undue impact on the living conditions of any neighbouring occupiers. However, this does not mitigate against the visual harm I have identified would result from this inappropriate scheme. 7. I thereby conclude that the proposal would be harmful to both the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surrounding area, and would materially conflict with the aims and requirements of HDPF Policy 33. 8. For the above reasons and, having had regard to all matters raised, the appeal does not succeed. Timothy C King INSPECTOR