Two storey front and first floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 December 2017 by R Norman BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18th December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/D/17/3183187 62 First Avenue, Dunstable LU6 3AL  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 J Fraser against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council.  The application Ref CB/17/03132/FULL, dated 28 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 August 2017.  The development proposed is a two storey front and first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located within an established residential estate and comprises a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling. The proposed development would introduce a first floor extension to the side of the dwelling, extending forward to include a two-storey forward projection. The surrounding area consists of two-storey dwellings, many of which are semi-detached with some detached dwellings also present. The area has a variety in designs, but with common features present including two storey bay window features. 4. The adjoining semi-detached dwelling is similar in its appearance to the appeal dwelling in terms of their front elevations. Both have an existing single storey side projection, and whilst there are slight variations in the design of these, the pair of dwellings remains relatively balanced and comprehensive. The adjoining pair of semi-detached dwellings to the north east also present a similar design. The introduction of the forward projecting element at first floor would serve to unbalance the existing pair of dwellings in scale and design terms. 5. The forward projection of the proposed extension would involve the merging of the two-storey bay windows into the extension. Although not all of the dwellings in the wider area have this bay feature, it is present on a number of the dwellings including the appeal dwelling, the adjoining dwelling and the adjacent pair to the north east. The loss of this element of the dwelling would further unbalance the pair of semi-detached dwellings and the front extension Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/17/3183187 2 would result in an incongruous and dominant addition which would be harmful to the well-established character and appearance of the street scene. 6. I acknowledge that there is some variety in the dwelling designs in the area, however the pairs of semi-detached dwellings tend to reflect one another in design terms and the variation is introduced mainly through the detached dwellings. There are very few examples of forward projecting first floor elements, with the majority of the first floor elements being set back from the main front elevations of the dwellings. The existing variations in design do not detract from the comprehensive character of the wider estate and as such this is not sufficient to outweigh the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area as a result of the forward projecting two-storey extension. 7. For the above reasons the proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Policies H8 and BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2004) and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide Section 7 (2014). These policies require extensions to existing buildings to complement and harmonise with the local surroundings and take full account of the character of the site and surroundings. Other Matters 8. The Appellant has identified other examples where extensions have been permitted in Dunstable. The examples at Norman Way and Tarnside Close are located at some distance from the appeal site in areas that present different characteristics to the appeal proposal. In any case, they do not represent positive contributors to the predominant character and appearance of the wider area. The example at Windemere Close is located within a small cul-de-sac to the west of the appeal site however I do not know the circumstances behind the approval of this scheme. Furthermore, this development has resulted in an unbalancing effect on the pair of semi-detached dwellings and as such I do not consider that it sets a precedent for the proposed development. I therefore give these examples limited weight in my consideration of the proposed development. 9. The Appellant has stated that the development would provide adequate parking provision and would have no harmful impacts on the living conditions of adjoining residents. The Council have agreed with this view and as such it is not necessary for me to conclude on these matters as they would have no bearing on the outcome of this appeal. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. R Norman INSPECTOR