Rear extension over existing day room to provide extended bedrooms, shower room and ground floor utility room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 January 2018 by Andrew McCormack BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 19 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/V2004/D/17/3182605 32 Endike Lane, Hull HU6 7UP  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 Dr. Juozas Domakas against the decision of Kingston-upon-Hull City Council.  The application Ref 17/0756/FULL, dated 1 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 9 August 2017.  The development proposed is rear extension over existing day room to provide extended bedrooms, shower room and ground floor utility room. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The Hull Local Plan 2016-2032 was adopted by the Council on 23 November 2017 and its policies supersede the saved policies within the Hull Local Plan 2000 which were identified on the Council’s Decision Notice, namely Policies BE1 and BE5. I have had regard to the newly adopted policies, Policies 14 and 22 of the new Local Plan which relate to design matters and house extensions and alterations. In doing so, I am satisfied that these policies are consistent with those now superseded. Furthermore, I find that the consideration of the appeal proposal against these newly adopted policies would not prejudice either the Council’s or the appellant’s case. Accordingly, I have assessed the appeal in that context and on that basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, particularly relating to the street scene of Endike Lane. Reasons 4. The appeal property is an end of terrace, two storey dwelling on the north side of Endike Lane. It is adjacent to the campus of Endike Academy Primary School to the west and there is an access lane running along the shared boundary. As such, the west boundary of the appeal site is visible when viewed from the school campus and when travelling east along Endike Lane. To the south, there is a range of larger non-residential buildings. As a result, the area has a mixed character. However, the terrace of properties of which the appeal property is a part provides a significant residential element to the wider character and appearance of the area. 5. Policy 14 of the Hull Local Plan 2016-2032 (LP) states that development proposals must demonstrate how its design would assist in creating a high quality Appeal Decision APP/V2004/D/17/3182605 2 environment in terms of character, scale and massing. Policy 22 of the LP relates to extending or altering a property. This policy states that such proposals would be acceptable where they are designed in such a way as to have no serious adverse effect on the amenity of nearby occupiers and would be in keeping with its surroundings. 6. The proposed extension would be a relatively large addition to the property, particularly with regard to other extensions of properties within the terrace. I note that the plot upon which the appeal property is positioned widens towards the rear. As such, it is larger than other nearby residential plots in the area. As a result, I find that the proposal would not result in a cramped appearance or over development of the plot. 7. Notwithstanding this, the proposal would extend the property towards the west boundary of the site which would create a pinch point close to the boundary fence. Furthermore, the scheme would result in a blank two storey brick wall facing the school campus and access lane. In addition, it would have a flat roof which would relate to the full extent of the proposal and would have a visible impact around the existing property. 8. Having regard to the surrounding context, whilst I appreciate that other properties within the terrace have flat roof rear extensions, I find that the scale and height of the proposed development would not visually relate well to the host property and would look incongruous in its surroundings. The appellant argues that the original property has previously been extended at ground floor level and had alterations to its appearance. As such, there is little of the original building for the proposal to be in keeping with. Whilst the property has been extended, its character and appearance primarily is of a residential end of terrace property with a pitched and hipped roof. The proposed extension would be substantial and in relation to its scale, height and flat roof, I find that it would significantly alter the character and appearance of the property and therefore impact on the wider street scene. 9. The appellant states that the proposed extension would be mostly hidden from view at the front of the property and would be screened by planting and shrubs between the property and the west boundary. As such, its impact on the surrounding area would be limited. Whilst the proposal would not be particularly visible from the area immediately in front of the property, due to its proximity to the site boundary and its two storey height, I find that it would be highly visible and prominent in views from areas to the south west and west of the appeal property. Moreover, I find that planting within the limited space available on the appeal site between the proposed development and the boundary fence would be unlikely to acceptably mitigate the visual impact of the extension on the street scene of Endike Lane. 10. A number of existing two storey rear extensions to nearby properties within the terrace have been identified which are visible from Endike Academy. As such, the appellant argues that the proposed scheme would not result in any substantial difference to that view. Furthermore, taking into consideration other flat roof buildings in the surrounding area, including the Academy and the Territorial Army barracks opposite the appeal property, the appellant states that the proposal would be in keeping with its surroundings. From what I have seen, I find that the visual impact of the proposal resulting from its position close to the shared boundary with Endike Academy would be substantially more prominent than the existing rear extensions of properties further along the terrace which are positioned further back from the visible boundary. Appeal Decision APP/V2004/D/17/3182605 3 11. The appellant refers to other developments in the wider locality which, it is argued, lend support to their case. I have had due regard to these in assessing this appeal. However, the full details and circumstances relating to these other examples are not before me. Therefore, whilst I note the similarities and differences between these examples and the proposed scheme with regard to their impact on the street scene and wider area, I must give limited weight to them in determining this appeal. Notwithstanding this, and in any event, I must assess the appeal proposal on its own merits and confirm that I have done so. 12. The proposed development would provide additional accommodation to the appeal property for the appellant. Although the proposed extension would not be excessive in terms of its extent with regard to the size of the appeal site, I find that its scale, position and design would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area. As a result, having carefully considered all of the above, I find that the benefits of the proposal would be outweighed by the harm I have identified. 13. Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would have a significant detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the street scene of Endike Lane. Therefore, it would be contrary to Policies 14 and 22 of the LP and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 5. Amongst other matters, these policies and guidance seek to ensure that development has no adverse impact on its surroundings. Conclusion 14. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew McCormack INSPECTOR