First floor side and two storey rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 December 2017 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/D/17/3183273 Pathhead, Kinghorn Lane, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 7QG.  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 Nick Brandon-King against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.  The application ref: 17/01325, dated 21 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 7 July 2017.  The development proposed is “First floor side and two storey rear extensions.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are: a) The effect of the proposed two storey rear extension upon the character and appearance of the host building and that of the surrounding area. b) The impact of the two storey rear extension upon the living conditions of nearby residents in Switchback Road South. Reasons a) Effect upon character and appearance. 3. Pathhead comprises a large, two storey modern detached house, being located within a mixed residential area. 4. It is proposed to demolish a detached single storey wooden annexe to the rear of the property and to erect a two storey structure at rightangles to the original rear main elevation of the house as constructed. This would be stepped down in order to mirror the rearward slope of the garden and incorporates recessed brick features at first floor level in the east elevation to eliminate any potential overlooking of the adjacent dwellings in Switchback Road South. 5. The ground floor windows to the east elevation of the new structure would be at a high level to prevent loss of privacy, while the west facing windows at first floor level would be offset to obviate direct views of the gardens of Pathhead and Kinghorn House next door. Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/17/3183273 2 6. Chapter 7 (Requiring good design) of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) sets out the Government’s approach to the design of the built environment. It states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions (see paragraph 64). 7. Similarly, “saved” Policy H14 1) of the Local Plan1 states that extensions should not have any adverse effect upon the character or appearance of the original property or any neighbouring properties. 8. The bulky, two storey extension would replace a modest, single storey wooden structure located within the rear garden of the property closely abutting the common boundary with 69 and 69a Switchback Road South. The footprint of the extension, which would project some 14m beyond the rear elevation of the house, would equate to approximately 70 per cent of that of the existing main dwelling. 9. The height, bulk and rearward projection of the new structure would be wholly out of proportion with the main dwelling; neither would it be subservient to or relate in design terms to it. The extension would also be visible from a number of adjacent properties and possibly also from Switchback Road South between the dwellings which front that road. 10. I therefore find upon the first main issue that development as proposed would appear incongruous and represent an overdevelopment of the appeal site that would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host building and that of the surrounding area, contrary to national policy in the Framework as referred to above and “saved” Policy H14 1) of the Local Plan. b) Impact upon living conditions. 11. As part of my site visit and as requested I visited 69 and 69a Switchback Road South. I was able to view the proposed extension from within both properties. 12. “Saved” Policy H14 2) of the Local Plan states that extensions should not cause an unacceptable loss of light or privacy to adjacent properties, or significantly affect their amenities. 13. The proposed two storey extension would closely abut the common boundary with the rear private gardens of both nos. 69 and 69a. Given its height and bulk it would appear as an overbearing and incongruous feature when viewed from the principal living room and bedroom windows of both dwellings. 14. The largely unrelieved east flank wall of the extension would project over 5m above the existing close boarded boundary fencing. This is in contrast to the low key wooden structure that currently exists, whose eaves level is only marginally above the height of the fencing. As a result, the extension would also dominate the rear private gardens of nos. 69 and 69a. 15. Accordingly, I find upon the second main issue that development as proposed would have an unacceptably harmful impact on the living conditions of existing and future residents of 69 and 69a Switchback Road South, contrary to “saved” Policy H14 2) of the Local Plan. 1 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan (Incorporating Alterations adopted in June 2003). Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/17/3183273 3 Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should fail. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR