Side and rear two storey extension and internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 October 2017 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: 19 October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/W0340/D/17/3177368 4 Beechfield, Frilsham, Hermitage, Thatcham RG18 9XF  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 Adam Pusey against the decision of West Berkshire District Council.  The application, Ref. 17/00132/HOUSE, dated 23 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 March 2017.  The development proposed is a side and rear two storey extension and internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings, which lie within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘the AONB’). Reasons 3. The Council’s concern is that the proposed extensions would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host building, including being disproportionately large. In respect of the latter, reference is made to section (d) of Policy ENV24 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007). In this regard the Council regards a 50% increase in size of the original dwelling as a reasonable maximum under its 2004 Replacement Dwellings and Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside SPD guidance, and with its proposed overall 70% increase in floor area and 81% in volume (the Council’s calculation) the appeal scheme is considered excessive and would ‘therefore be unacceptable’. 4. However, in my view whilst the actual extent of floorspace or volume above the guidelines is useful as a guide, it is the specific effect on the dwelling’s character and appearance that is the deciding factor. In this instance the appeal property is one half of a pair with No. 3 and the traditional rural and symmetrical design of the pair occurs in a number of instances in the locality. 5. Turning firstly to the side extension, although this would be of a modest width and single storey height, I consider that the shallower roof pitch than the 500 angle of the dwelling’s main roof and front, side and rear gabled projections Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/17/3177368 2 would appear unsympathetic and ungainly. In my view it would draw the eye and as an obtrusive addition spoil the appearance of the front and rear elevations, whilst at the same time unnecessarily increase the overall volume of the extensions. 6. The design of the two storey rear extension would be more sympathetic but with a gable combining both the height of the building’s first floor and the roof appearing to compete with the existing ‘above first floor eaves only’ gable next to it, this addition would be perceived as being too large for the host dwelling. Whilst the Council also objects to the volume and floorspace thereby created in respect of the effect on the surrounding area, I consider that given the limited vantage points from the public realm and wider AONB landscape this is not a significant factor. 7. Arguably at least, the adverse effect on the host building lies rather more with the fact that with a design comprising essentially the same roof profile as the existing gable as opposed to having any individuality, the addition appears as being dominant rather than subordinate in relation to the rear elevation of the dwelling. In short it is more an issue of detailed design rather than excessive scale and bulk, although this certainly does not preclude a reduction in size of the proposed rear extension as an alternative. 8. On the main issue I therefore conclude that in their present form the proposed extensions would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building (including No. 3 as the other half of the pair) and its surroundings. This would conflict with the afore-mentioned Policy ENV24 and other policies and guidance including Policies CS14 & CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026); the Council’s Quality Design Part 2 SPD 2006, and Government policy in Section 7: ‘Requiring Good Design’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 9. Turning briefly to other matters, the appeal scheme has attracted a number of objections including from the occupiers of Nos. 3 and 5 as regards the effect on their living conditions, mainly light and outlook. However I note that these are addressed in the officer’s report, albeit briefly, and whilst I have carefully considered afresh the points made by the objectors I have no reason to dissent from the Council’s conclusion that there would not be an unacceptable impact in terms of the matters raised. I have come to the same conclusion in respect of the objection from the occupier of No. 16. 10. I have considered all the other objections made but conclude that whilst the dismissal of the appeal is necessary, this is on the basis of the matters dealt with in my consideration of the main issue. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR