Alterations and two storey extension to Spring Cottage

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/17/3183516 Spring Cottage, Sutton Road, Cookham, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 9SY.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 again st a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Robert and Mrs Jennifer Parker against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.  The application ref: 17/01694, dated 8 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 July 2017.  The development proposed is alterations and two storey extension to Spring Cottage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations and two storey extension at Spring Cottage, Sutton Road, Cookham, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 9SY, in accordance with the terms of the application ref: 17/01694, dated 8 May 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing no. SC/LOC/01: Site Location Plan – scale 1:500. Drawing no. SC/EXI/01: Existing Site Block Plan – scale 1:200. Drawing no. SC/EXI/02: Existing Ground Floor Plan – scale 1:50. Drawing no. SC/EXI/03: Existing First Floor Plan – scale 1:50. Drawing no. SC/EXI/04: Existing Roof Plan – scale 1:50. Drawing no. SC/EXI/05: Existing Front Elevation – scale 1:50. Drawing no. SC/EXI/06: Existing Rear Elevation – scale 1:50. Drawing no. SC/EXI/07: Existing Side Elevation (North) – scale 1:50. Drawing no. SC/EXI/08: Existing Side Elevation (South) – scale 1:50. Drawing no. SC/PRO/01: Proposed Site Block Plan – scale 1:200. Drawing no. SC/PRO/02A: Proposed Ground Floor Plan – scale 1:50. Drawing no. SC/PRO/03: Proposed First Floor Plan – scale 1:50. Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/17/3183516 2 Drawing no. SC/PRO/04: Proposed Roof Plan – scale 1:50. Drawing no. SC/PRO/05B Proposed Front Elevation – scale 1:50. Drawing no. SC/PRO/06: Proposed Rear Elevation – scale 1:50. Drawing no. SC/PRO/07: Proposed Side Elevation (North) – scale 1:50. Drawing no. SC/PRO/08: Proposed Side Elevation (South) – scale 1:50. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the extension and alterations upon the character and appearance of the host building and that of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. Spring Cottage is a detached, two storey house erected in the 1980’s forming part of a small development of similar dwellings, albeit of differing elevational details. The houses are set back from Sutton Road. 4. The surrounding area comprises a mix of detached and semi-detached houses and a bungalow, which backs onto the appeal site (Chardonne, School Lane). The appeal site is not within a Conservation Area or Area of Special Residential Character and there is no recognisable form or use of materials within its immediate surroundings. 5. The extension would infill a small space at the front of the dwelling and also provide a first floor extension above the garage. This, in turn, would be amalgamated with the existing playroom to form a more usable living room. 6. The detailed design of dwellings and their appearance is a material planning consideration, as detailed at Chapter 7 of the Framework1 under the heading “Requiring good design.” Likewise, “saved” Policy DG1 of the Local Plan2 requires development to achieve a high quality of design that improves the character and quality of an area. 7. “Saved” Local Plan Policy H14 1) specifically states that proposals for house extensions should not have any adverse effect upon the character or appearance of the original property or any neighbouring properties, nor adversely affect the street scene in general. Guidance G6.9a of the Cookham VDS3 requires, amongst other matters, that extensions should be subordinate in scale and sympathetically reflect the design of the original building. 8. I acknowledge that the two storey extension would be readily visible as viewed from the street, notwithstanding the partial screening provided by a tree within the front garden area. 9. The proposed alterations would radically change the appearance of the existing property, with its pronounced gable end to the front elevation. Nevertheless, the lower ridge height of the new front section of the dwelling would mask the slightly higher original roof to the rear as viewed from ground level and, importantly, from the street. 1 The National Planning Policy Framework. 2 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan 1999 (Incorporating Alterations adopted June 2003). 3 Cookham Village Design Statement: Supplementary Planning Document (adopted May 2013). Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/17/3183516 3 10. Development as proposed would considerably enhance the accommodation on offer at Spring Cottage to both ground and first floor levels. Furthermore, in terms of the chosen elevational treatment the removal of the front gable and the use of brick facing to the ground floor and timber boarding above would not be out of place having regard to the wide range of dwellings nearby and their varied appearance. Nor would it be at odds with the appearance of the host building. 11. The forward projection of the extension would be visible from adjacent properties. However, the three houses within the development of which Spring Cottage forms part have a staggered front building line, which is also a feature seen elsewhere along Sutton Road. 12. For all of these reasons I have found upon the main issue that development as proposed would satisfactorily relate to and not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building or that of the surrounding area, as required by national policy at Chapter 7 of the Framework, “saved” Policies DG1 and H14 1) of the Local Plan and guidance in the Cookham Village Design Statement as referred to above. Conditions 13. The Council has put forward a total of three conditions to be imposed should I be minded to allow the appeal. I have considered these against the tests of the Framework and advice provided by the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance issued on 6 March 2014. 14. The materials to be used in constructing the development are specified on the submitted plans. For the reasons given in paragraph 10 above I consider them to be acceptable. As such, a condition requiring the materials to match those of the existing building, as requested by the Council, is not necessary. 15. My reasons for the balance of the conditions are as follows: 16. Condition 1 is the standard commencement condition imposed in accordance with section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Condition 2, which requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, provides certainty. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR