Extension to form new kitchen and bedroom and internal alterations to existing house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 January 2018 by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/D/17/3186807 May Cottage, Summerstown, Marsh Gibbon, Buckinghamshire OX27 0AW  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 Cathy Graham against the decision of Aylesbury Vale District Council.  The application Ref 17/02144/APP, dated 5 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 2 August 2017.  The development proposed is an extension to form new kitchen and bedroom and internal alterations to existing house. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an extension to form new kitchen and bedroom and internal alterations to existing house at May Cottage, Summerstown, Marsh Gibbon, Buckinghamshire in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/02144/APP, dated 5 June 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2017/217/001a, 002a, 003b, 004b, 005b, 006b, 007a and 008a. 3) The materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The proposal would result in a large two storey side extension to this semi- detached dwelling. It would be considerably lower than the ridge of the main house and set significantly back from the front elevation. It would be of a relatively simple design and matching materials. The floor plan would be relatively deep but the side facing gable would be set well back from the frontage and would be screened to a large extent, by roadside vegetation. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/17/3186807 2 4. The extension would be relatively long, being only slightly shorter than the length of the main house. The dwelling is however one half of a pair of semi- detached properties and the combined existing frontage is therefore substantially longer. Both properties have been significantly extended and in combination appear as a development of considerable scale. Given these circumstances, the length of the proposed side extension would not result in it being dominant or anything other than subservient to the scale of the properties overall. It would not be a strident form of development and it would not overwhelm the existing dwellings as suggested by the Council. 5. There is concern that the proposal would unbalance this pair of properties. However, the dwellings do not appear as a balanced pair given the differing roof forms. In any event, this addition would be entirely subservient to the form and character of the existing frontage. 6. The Council make reference to their Design Guide: Residential Extensions. The officer report advises that it warns against particularly large extensions which destroy the composition of existing buildings; and incremental additions which distort the original composition of a relatively small house. These properties have been extended and altered to a point whereby their character as small houses has already been lost. 7. I acknowledge that the dwelling retains a roof pitch which, as suggested by the Council, suggests a previously thatched roof. However, the extension would not detract from the appearance of this gable. Although the proposed roof pitch would differ, there are many other roof pitches that make up the overall composition of these properties. The proposed design would ensure that the extension would be viewed as a distinct new element that would not detract from what remains of the original character of these properties. I have not been provided with the details or full content of the Design Guide and I am therefore unclear as to its status. However, I have not found conflict with the extracts that have been referred to. 8. Overall, the design has been carefully considered in order that it would respect the existing character of these properties and their surroundings. It would satisfy the design requirements of Policies GP9(a) and GP35 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan 2004. As the policies generally accord with the design requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, I afford them considerable weight. 9. I have considered all the matters put forward by the local planning authority but I do not consider that they weigh significantly against the proposal. I therefore allow the appeal. 10. I have imposed a condition relating to the commencement of development in the interests of proper planning and a condition specifying the relevant drawings to provide certainty. I have required that the materials match to ensure that the extension would have a satisfactory appearance. Peter Eggleton INSPECTOR