Demolition of existing single storey extension and new two storey extension with minor terrace works to the rear and side of the building

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 November 2017 by N A Holdsworth MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 8th December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/L2250/D/3177302 Hawkhurst, West Lawn Gardens, Sandgate, CT20 3DQ  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 Vaughan and Brewer against the decision of Shepway District Council.  The application Ref Y17/0193/SH, dated 15 February 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 April 2017.  The development proposed is demolition of existing single storey extension and new two storey extension with minor terrace works to the rear and side of the building. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing single storey extension and new two storey extension with minor terrace works to the rear and side of the building at Hawkhurst, West Lawn Gardens, Sandgate, CT20 3DQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref Y17/0193/SH, dated 15 February 2017 subject to the attached schedule of 4 conditions. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr & Mrs Vaughan & Brewer against Shepway District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Main Issue 3. The effect on the character and appearance of the area; and whether the proposed development would conserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Sandgate High Street Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The site falls within the Sandgate High Street Conservation Area and Section 72 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires decision makers to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of such areas. I consider that in this case the special character of the Conservation Area is principally derived from the relationship between the historic buildings facing the seafront promenade, with the Esplanade and beach; and their hillside setting to the rear. Appeal Decision APP/L2250/D/3177302 2 5. The rear elevation of the building is visible from the Esplanade to the front, across an area of undeveloped land that comprises a gap within the seafront frontage. Whilst the Council consider the host building is a prominent feature in views from this area, I observed that it is set back a significant distance from the Esplanade. It does not directly address the seafront, appearing instead as one of a number of residential buildings located on the hillside beyond. The appeal proposal principally differs from previously approved but still extant plans in that the existing projecting bay on the rear elevation of the host property would be connected to the proposed ground floor extension, through the construction of a small link wall projecting forward from the bay. 6. The Council express concern that, by linking part of the existing bay to the proposed extension, the proposals would diminish the significance of the bay in relation to the host building. However, this criticism could also be applied to the previously approved plans. Under that scheme, the extension would project directly forward of the bay at ground floor level, creating dead space between the bay and the extension. 7. Whilst the previously approved plans would retain the bay in its entirety, it would be dominated by the extension in views from the rear of the property, making the architectural function of the retained bay at ground floor level unclear and unresolved. By contrast, the appeal proposal seeks to integrate the bay in to the extended building through the link extension. It would therefore achieve a complete and coherent visual relationship between the two elements of the extended building. 8. As such, I find that the proposed development would not result in any harm to the character and appearance of the host building. In terms of the effect on the Conservation Area, the alterations would affect the ground floor rear elevation of the building and the alteration to the bay would be so small that it would be unlikely to be noticeable from the Esplanade. The other alterations to the building, including the balustrading surrounding the terrace and balconies would be detailed in materials sympathetic to the age and appearance of the host building. The works would cumulatively affect a minority of the rear elevation of the building, and would result in no significant change to its existing appearance in respect of the Esplanade and surrounding hillside. 9. The total amount of demolition involved in the reconstruction of the existing lower ground floor extension and the alteration of the bay would comprise a small proportion of the total volume of the building. Whilst part of the bay wall, which may be an original part of the building, would be removed, the majority of this feature would be retained. The works would not therefore result in material harm to this heritage asset. Overall, the effect of the works on the special character of the Conservation Area would be neutral. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area, and would preserve the character and appearance of the Sandgate High Street Conservation Area. There is no conflict with saved policies BE1 and BE8 of the Shepway District Local Plan Review (2006) (“Local Plan”) which, amongst other things, require that extensions accord with existing development in the locality and reflect the scale, proportions, roof line and detailing of the existing building. The proposal also complies with Policy BE4 of the Local Plan, which Appeal Decision APP/L2250/D/3177302 3 requires alterations to existing buildings to respect the character of Conservation Areas. Conditions 11. I observed that the neighbouring properties are already overlooked by the terrace at ground floor level and, in consequence, any additional overlooking arising from the additional balconies and roof terrace would not result in material harm to the living conditions of surrounding residential buildings. As such, a condition requiring the erection of a boundary fence between the appeal site and neighbouring properties would not be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with the relevant statutory requirements [1], in the interests of certainty [2] and to ensure that the development preserves the character and appearance of the Sandgate High Street Conservation Area [3]. A pre commencement condition is necessary and justified on this occasion to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to mitigate the risks arising from land instability during the construction process [4]. 12. I have changed the wording of the Council’s suggested conditions to ensure compliance with the government’s policy on planning conditions set out in paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework. I have also worded condition 4 in a more general way, to make the condition less prescriptive and therefore reasonable in all other respects. 13. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed in accordance with the conditions set out in the attached schedule. Neil Holdsworth INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/L2250/D/3177302 4 SCHEDULE OF 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: AL (0)00; AL (0) 09; AL(0)11 rev B; AL (0)12 rev B; AL(0)13 rev B, AL (0) 14 rev B, AL (0) 10 rev A. 3) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the details of materials as specified in the application, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 4) No work connected to the implementation of this planning permission shall commence on site until a slope stability report advising on the effect of the development on the stability of the site and all adjoining land and properties has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This report must include a method statement indicating measures to be adopted during the construction phase to ensure that development does not cause instability to adjoining residential walls, land and buildings. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition. --- END OF CONDITIONS ---