Single storey rear extension as family room and new kitchen

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 November 2017 by Mark Dakeyne BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 30 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/T2405/D/17/3183368 11 Albert Road, Countesthorpe, Leicestershire LE8 5XU  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 and Mrs Messiah against the decision of Blaby District Council.  The application Ref 17/0925/HH, dated 11 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 August 2017.  The development proposed is single storey rear extension as family room and new kitchen. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a tall detached house occupying a corner plot. Privacy to the rear garden is provided by a 2.4m high boundary wall sited close to the pavement on Hoffler Close. The wall has a short return linking with the rear north-west corner of the house. Buildings on the new estate are of mixed but traditional design with pitched roofs and gables. 4. The majority of the lean-to extension would be sited up against the rear elevation of the house but at its northern end it would project 1.5m beyond the side elevation so it would be up against the screening boundary wall, filling in behind the short return. 5. Although the projecting element would be modest in size and partially screened, to my mind it would appear awkward in the street scene. The projection would lead to the extension as a whole not aligning with, and unbalancing, the rear elevation when seen from the west. The mono-pitched shallow roof and rendered upstands above the boundary wall would not reflect the characteristics of the main elements in the street scene – substantial pitched roofs and the principal front and gable side elevations of houses. The filling-in of the return beyond the side elevation would be a contrived method of providing more space, not fitting in with the overall symmetry of the house. 6. The failing with the design is not so much the use of the pitched tiled roof but the siting of the northernmost portion beyond the side elevation of the house. Appeal Decision APP/T2405/D/17/3183368 2 7. From what I could see the extension at No 4 Albert Road is enclosed by surrounding buildings so is not readily visible from the road. Therefore, it is not directly comparable with the proposal before me. 8. I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably impact on the street scene and conflict with Policy CS2 of the Blaby District Core Strategy1 and Policy R1 of the Blaby District Local Plan (adopted September 1999) as it would not be appropriate in its context and would be out of character with the appearance of the area. 9. I note that there is support from neighbours who would not be adversely affected. The proposal would provide more ground floor accommodation and an improved internal layout to meet family needs. However, these factors are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified. 10. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Mark Dakeyne INSPECTOR 1 Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document Adopted February 2013