Two storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 January 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B1740/D/17/3186879 91 Water Lane, Totton, Southampton SO40 3DJ  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 Ms B Everett against the decision of the New Forest District Council.  The application, Ref. 17/10945, dated 2 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 August 2017.  The development proposed is a two storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey front extension at 91 Water Lane, Totton, Southampton in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 17/10945, dated 2 July 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 shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: Drawing No. EVER001; 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 extension on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the street scene. Reasons 3. I saw on my visit that the appeal property is located within a street scene that has no particular defining characteristics, given its varied house types, different building lines and orientations, a range of external materials and in this part of the road a couple of commercial uses. 4. The appeal property has a large projecting front gable with a full bay and is readily identifiable as a 1920s / 1930s dwelling. There are pairs of semi- detached houses of a similar vintage in another part of Water Lane, together with some Victorian semis. However, whilst these buildings, including No. 91, are sufficiently distinctive to be identifiable as emanating from a particular Appeal Decision APP/B1740/D/17/3186879 2 period in the evolution of this suburban area, I agree with the grounds of appeal that they are essentially unremarkable. 5. The appeal scheme proposes an extension that would provide a new hallway and open porch on the ground floor and a study on the first floor. In terms of the building’s appearance this would replace a recessive roof plan with a second gable sitting alongside the original, but much narrower and lower. 6. Whilst I can see the Council’s point to the extent that the outcome of the development would no longer be one of a noticeable contrast between the projection of the original gable and the receding roof alongside it, the extent to which this alteration would be harmful is far more arguable. As the grounds of appeal explain, the addition would not break out from the existing envelope and infringe any building line. 7. The original front gable and full bay would remain undisturbed and I consider it extremely unlikely that once completed the proposed extension would be perceived by any passer-by as having spoilt the appearance of the dwelling itself from any vantage point in Water Lane. The street scene would similarly remain unaffected, as there is no attractive rhythm, symmetry or other visual cohesion that would be lost or interrupted in relation to the building’s immediate setting or wider context from this essentially minor development. 8. Accordingly, I conclude that as regards the main issue, no material or noticeable harm would be caused in conflict with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park 2009 or Section 7: ‘Requiring Good Design of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 9. The appeal is therefore allowed and I shall impose a condition requiring matching external materials to ensure that the extension harmonises with the host dwelling. A condition stipulating that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plan will avoid any uncertainty as to the exact nature of the approval. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR