Single storey extension to semi-detached dwelling, to provide a new office and entrance lobby

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 September 2017 by Caroline Jones BA (Hons) DipTP MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 4th October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/G0908/D/17/3178739 25 Thirlmere Avenue, Cockermouth CA13 9AG  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 Darren Whetton against the decision of Allerdale Borough Council.  The application Ref HOU/2017/0054, dated 11 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 May 2017.  The development proposed is single storey extension to semi-detached dwelling, to provide a new office and entrance lobby. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Following the submission of the appeal, the Lake District area was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site (WHS) for selection criteria (iii), (iv) and (vi) relating to its importance as a traditional human settlement and representative of culture or human interaction with the environment and associated with traditions, beliefs, artistic/literary works of universal significance. As the appeal site lies close to the boundary of the Lake District area, the main parties were invited to consider the implications of the designation and to make any further comments as they felt necessary. Neither party was of the opinion that the proposal would have an effect on the WHS. Having regard to the information before me I have no reason to conclude otherwise and consider that, due to its location and small scale nature, the proposal would not cause material harm to the setting of the WHS. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Reasons 4. 25 Thirlmere Avenue is a semi-detached two storey property. The surrounding area is predominantly residential comprising properties of a similar character and age. The appeal property is located on a prominent corner plot close to the junction of Thirlmere Avenue and Melbreak Avenue. Appeal Decision APP/G0908/D/17/3178739 2 5. The proposed development comprises a pitched roof single storey extension to the front of the property. The extension would measure approximately 2.5 metres in depth and 4.3 metres in width with an overall height to the ridge of approximately 3.8 metres. 6. Due to the proposal’s size and protrusion beyond the principal elevation, the extension would significantly alter and overwhelm the face of the original building failing to respect its character and appearance. Its prominent angled corner position would exacerbate its incongruity to the detriment of the street scene. 7. The appellant has drawn my attention to other front extensions in the surrounding area. From the information before me and from my observations on site, the other extensions are either of a more modest size or differ in their design and context. Thus, they are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme. Furthermore, I have been provided with little detail on the background which led to their construction which limits the weight that I can attach. In any case, each application and appeal must be assessed on its own merits. 8. I note that the extension would be constructed in matching materials and that the Council has raised no objections in terms of highway impact, parking, surface water drainage or residential amenity and that no objections were received from any neighbouring properties. Nonetheless, these matters do not negate the harm I have identified above. I also acknowledge that the proposal would bring about personal benefits to the appellant. However, personal circumstances seldom outweigh general planning considerations. House values are not a matter I can take into consideration. 9. I therefore conclude that the proposal would materially harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and find conflict with Policies S1, S2, S4, S32 and DM15 of the Allerdale Local Plan (2014). These seek, amongst other things, development of high quality design that respects the setting and character of the surroundings, of an appropriate scale and appearance that integrates well with existing development and does not result in a detrimental impact on visual amenity. 10. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. However the harm that I have found to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which states that planning should always seek to secure high quality design. As a result the proposal fails to create a high quality built environment or to protect the built environment contrary to the social and environmental roles of sustainable development as set out in the Framework. Therefore, in the overall round, the scheme would not constitute sustainable development. 11. For the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Caroline Jones INSPECTOR