Single storey rear/side extension with rear dormer for room in the roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 November 2017 by Mr Kim Bennett DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 13 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/M3835/D/17/3182138 107 Singleton Crescent, Goring- by-Sea, Worthing BN12 5DQ  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 Grant Ring against the decision of Worthing Borough Council.  The application Ref AWDM/0879/17, dated 24 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 3 August 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey rear/side extension with rear dormer for room in the roof. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear/side extension with rear dormer for room in the roof at 107 Singleton Crescent, Goring-by-Sea, Worthing BN12 5DQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref AWDM/0879/17, dated 24 May 2017, subject to the following 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: site plan; block plan; 16/1225/06 and 16/1225/07. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other openings (other than hereby approved) shall be formed in the rear and east side elevations or above ground floor in the west side elevation of the development hereby permitted. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area. Appeal Decision APP/M3835/D/17/3182138 2 Reasons 3. The appeal property comprises a detached bungalow on the corner of Singleton Crescent on its northern side. It is set back from the road frontage itself behind a large area of open space and its design includes a hipped roof with a gable element facing the road. The character of the area is wholly residential and consists entirely of bungalows, but with differing designs. In particular, there is a variety of roof rooms with a mixture of hipped, half hipped and gable ended roofs. 4. The Council is concerned that the proposal to have a gable end would result in a discordant roof form and would give rise to a cramped form of development. Concern is also raised in respect of the size of the rear dormer. 5. I acknowledge that the roof form would be altered, but the property already has a mixed hipped and gable roof, and the extension would be set back beyond the existing rear elevation. Furthermore, given the set back of the property from the road itself, the gable end would appear as a recessive element beyond the main roof, the form of which would remain as existing. In any event, it would be directly opposite the gable end of the neighbouring property, No 109 Singleton Crescent, which is also gable ended, and therefore in my view would not appear discordant. For a combination of these reasons I do not consider it would be out of place or result in a loss of character. 6. Although the extension would be closer to the common boundary with No 109, there would still be a driveway width between the two buildings which would provide an adequate spacing without giving rise to a cramped appearance. I also noted that it would not be dissimilar to other examples nearby where properties are not separated by driveways and are therefore already closely spaced. 7. With regard to the rear dormer, I agree it would be large in size, but it would not be visible from the street scene. I also observed that there are similar large rear dormers nearby. Whether they are there by virtue of permitted development or not, the fact remains that an additional dormer would not be out of character as a result. Although there is a railway line to the rear, I observed that passing trains are travelling at some speed and there would therefore be fleeting glimpses only. 8. With regard to loss of residential amenity I acknowledge the concerns of the occupiers of No 109, and took the opportunity to inspect the relationship from within that property. Having done so, I agree with the Council that there would be adequate spacing between the two properties to prevent any significant loss of natural light. There may be some limited impact upon loss of afternoon/evening sunlight from reaching the conservatory of No 109 during summer months, but in my view not so significant that it would justify withholding permission for that reason alone. In so far as impact upon No 105 is concerned, I agree with the Council that the relationship would be acceptable. 9. For the above reasons, the development would comply with Policy 16 of the Council’s Core Strategy 2011, and its Supplementary Planning Guidance – ‘Extending or Altering your Home’, in that it would respond to local character and have an appropriate relationship with the existing house. Appeal Decision APP/M3835/D/17/3182138 3 10. Conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and for matching materials, are necessary in the interests of certainty and visual amenity. A condition preventing additional windows being inserted in the side elevations is necessary in order to prevent direct loss of amenity. However, I do not consider a further condition suggested by the Council, in respect of obscure glazing to the proposed landing window, is necessary given its very limited size and the fact that it would look directly down the rear garden where there is already intervisibility between rear garden areas. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and planning permission granted. Kim Bennett INSPECTOR