Front, side and rear first-floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 December 2017 by David Troy BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 02 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/K0425/D/17/3183944 40 Commonside, Downley HP13 5XG  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 William Barber against the decision of Wycombe District Council.  The application Ref 17/06624/FUL, dated 13 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 11 August 2017.  The development proposed is a front, side and rear first-floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a front, side and rear first-floor extension at 40 Commonside, Downley HP13 5XG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/06624/FUL, dated 13 June 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 approved plans: Site Plan 1:1250, Block Plan 1:500 and Proposed Plans and Elevations H15-58 03/P1. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed side extension on the character and appearance of the host property and the area including the Downley Common Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal property at No. 40 Commonside (No. 40) is a two storey semi- detached dwelling with a front porch extension, single storey rear extension and an attached single storey pitched roof garage at the side. It is located at the end of a row of semi-detached and terraced cottages set back from the road within an area with a mixed well-established residential character. There are a range of terraced, detached and semi-detached properties that provide a diverse mix of house types and variety in the design, density and appearance of the dwellings in the area. Appeal Decision APP/K0425/D/17/3183944 2 4. The Council’s Design Guidelines for Extensions set out in Appendix 4 of the Wycombe District Local Plan to 2011 (as saved, extended and partially replaced) (2007) (LP) specifies a minimum set-in requirement of least 1m for a first floor side extension from the side boundary in order to give visual separation from adjoining properties. The guidelines also specify that the extensions should always be subservient to the original dwelling and this can be achieved visually if it is set back from the frontage. 5. The proposal would entail the construction of a first floor side extension over the existing garage that would be set back over a mini-pitched roof by about 450mm from the front elevation of the property. It would extend out up to the side common boundary with the adjacent detached property at No. 41 and would be stepped down below the ridge of the main house with a gabled end pitched roof. It would be separated from the adjacent property by a detached garage and vehicular driveway running between the properties. The proposal would also involve the construction of a first floor extension projecting out from the rear of the appeal property with a pitched roof. 6. I note the Council’s and appellant’s comments regarding the previous approved first floor front, side and rear extension granted in February 20171 but not yet implemented. Based on the evidence before me, there is a reasonable likelihood that the appellant would implement all or some of the extant permission as a fallback position if this appeal is dismissed. In my view, the scale, form and design of the appeal scheme would have a more limited impact on the character and appearance of host property and the area than the previously approved proposed side extension with its awkward and contrived set back from the side boundary at first floor level. I therefore accord this matter significant weight in making this decision. 7. Whilst the proposed side extension would be located in a prominent position, it would be seen in the context of the previous extensions and alterations at No. 40, adjacent two storey properties and the current varied architectural styles in the surrounding area. Against this backdrop, the scale, form and design of the proposed extension, stepped down and set back, would not appear significantly out of place or excessive in relation to the built form of the host property and the relationship with the adjacent property would allow reasonable space to prevent any significant terracing effect. 8. The modest overall increase of the first floor side projection at No. 40 together with the use of matching materials and fenestrations would ensure the proposal would sit relatively unobtrusively against the two storey form of the main property. The proposal would therefore achieve an appropriate degree of subordination to the host property and as such would not detract from the architectural integrity of the host property and would limit any significant adverse impacts on the street scene. 9. Given the location of the appeal site within the Downley Common Conservation Area (CA), special attention has to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. I consider that the appeal scheme, by virtue of its scale, form and design would have a neutral material impact and would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. 1 17/05020/FUL Appeal Decision APP/K0425/D/17/3183944 3 10. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the area including the CA. Despite a technical breach of Council’s Design Guidelines for Extensions on first floor side extensions, given the site specific circumstances, I conclude that the development would be consistent with LP Policies G3, H17 and HE6, Policies CS17 and CS19 of the Wycombe Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2008 and the Council’s Design Guidelines for Extensions. These policies and guidance seek, amongst other things, to ensure development and extensions are of a high quality design that respects and reflects the local context, the character and appearance of the original property and surrounding area and preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the Conservation Areas. Conditions 11. Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular paragraph 206, I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have specified the approved plans as this provides certainty. In order to protect the character and appearance of the area, I have also imposed a condition requiring that the external surfaces of the development match those of the existing property. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. David Troy INSPECTOR