2 storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2017 by Alison Partington BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22nd December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/17/3183503 68 Landseer Avenue, Warrington WA4 6DJ  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 Dudley against the decision of Warrington Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/30737, dated 17 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 August 2017.  The development proposed is a 2 storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a 2 storey side extension at 68 Landseer Avenue, Warrington WA4 6DJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2017/30737, dated 17 June 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans Drg No. AHT 2098A. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is located on a bend in the road, so both its front and side elevations are adjacent to the road. At present the dwelling has a single storey side extension that extends the full width of the plot but its limited height means it is not substantially taller than the boundary fence. The surrounding area comprises houses of a similar design. 4. Detailed guidance on domestic extensions is provided in the House Extension Guidelines Supplementary Planning Guidance (adopted December 2003) (SPG). In line with this guidance, the ridge line of the proposed side extension would be lower than that of the house, and would have the same design and pitch as the main roof. In addition, the front elevation of the extension would be set Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/17/3183503 2 back in relation to the front elevation of the dwelling, and the width of the extension is not excessive in relation to that of the original house. As such, I am satisfied that the proposed extension would appear a subservient and sympathetic addition to the host property. 5. The SPG advises that extensions should not generally be built in front of the building line unless the extension matches the character and design of the dwelling, and building in such a location is not out of place with the appearance of the street, and layout of the buildings. It also indicates that corner plots should remain open with clear views around the corner, and to enable this it states that the width of the extension should not be more than half the width of the garden/plot between the property and the adjacent highway. 6. Unlike the current single story extension the proposed two storey extension would not extend the full width of the plot. Thus, whilst it would extend more than half of the plot, it would actually result in the opening up of the site to a certain extent. 7. Beyond the appeal property, Landseer Avenue is relatively straight, and the common design of the houses creates a relatively strong building line along this part of the road. The proposed extension would project beyond this. However, although the existing two storey side elevation of No 68 extends no further than the projecting single storey part of the front elevations of these houses, it does project beyond the building line created by the main front elevation of the houses to the west. Given these specific locational characteristics, I consider that the appeal scheme would not appear out of keeping with the appearance of the street, or the layout of the buildings. Nor would the extension be an overly dominant feature in the street scene, as it would be seen against the backdrop of the two storey gable elevation of No 51. 8. Consequently, I consider that the proposed extension would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with Policies CS1 or QE7 of the Warrington Borough Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted July 2014) which seek to ensure developments have a high standard of design that have regard to local distinctiveness and enhance the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion and Conditions 9. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that appeal should be allowed. 10. In addition to the standard implementation condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant plans, as this provides certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area a condition is required to control the external appearance of the extension. Alison Partington INSPECTOR