Rear ‘two storey flat roof extension (residential)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2017 by Graham Chamberlain BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22nd January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L2630/D/17/3187155 3 St Mary’s Walk, Newton Flotman, Norwich, Norfolk NR15 1PH  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 & Mrs Ian Shurmer against the decision of South Norfolk District Council.  The application Ref 2017/1653, dated 6 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 18 August 2017.  The development proposed is rear ‘two storey flat roof extension (residential)’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are: 1) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area: and 2) The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 4 St Mary’s Walk, with particular reference to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal site encompasses a detached bungalow set back from St Mary’s Walk behind a front garden. The original part of the property has a simple form with a rectangular plan and a single span pitched roof. The bungalow has a benign presence in the street scene. There is a later flat roofed single storey addition constructed to the rear and side of the property. This is not particularly visible from the public realm as it is screened by single storey garages positioned between the appeal site and 4 St Mary’s Walk, which is a bungalow located directly to the south of the appeal site on lower land. 4. The proposal is for the erection of a two storey flat roofed extension. Part of the extension would be over the footprint of the existing extension but it would project further into the garden. The overall depth of the proposed extension would be significant when considered relative to the existing bungalow. 5. The staircase would be located in the enlarged side addition, which would be arranged over two storeys and have a flat roof. This section of the extension would be particularly visible from St Mary’s Walk and would stand out as being at odds with the simple form and style of the original bungalow. The flat roof would result in the extension be an incongruous and strident feature that would be unduly prominent in the street scene of St Mary’s Walk when approaching Appeal Decision APP/L2630/D/17/3187155 2 the site from the south. The use of white UPVC cladding would further highlight the extension and ensure it harmfully stood out from the host property. 6. The two storey flat roofed form of the proposed extension more generally would not harmonise with the simple pitched roof form of the original bungalow. It would have a jarring and discordant appearance. This harmful impact would be exacerbated but the position of the extension flush with the side elevations of the original house and at the same height as the original ridge. These factors would ensure the extension appeared bulky and subsumed the host property rather than appearing as a proportionate and harmonious extension. 7. In light of my findings above, the proposed extension would harm the simple character and appearance of the existing property and the knock on impact of this is that the proposal would injure the street scene of St Mary’s Walk. The visual impact of the proposed extension would be localised but it would be a particularly awkward addition when seen and therefore its overall impact would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. 8. I accept that the property already has a flat roofed extension. This also jars with the style and form of the original bungalow. However, it is a single storey addition that is subservient in its height and depth to the host property. It is also largely screened from public views. As such, it does not have the same visual impact in the street scene that the proposed extension would. Thus, its presence does not justify allowing the appeal. 9. Whether a proposal would be well designed does have an element of subjective judgement. However, the relevant development plan policies, which I outline below, require extensions to maintain or enhance the character or appearance of a building. To achieve this, an extension should harmonise with the host property to some extent in terms of its style, materials, scale, massing or form. Such an assessment can have an element of objectivity. In this instance the proposed extension would jar with the style, form, materials and massing of the host property for the reasons already given. Thus, it would not achieve the aims of the relevant development plan policies. 10. In conclusion the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would thus be contrary to Policies DM 3.4 and DM 3.8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies Document 2015 (DMP). These policies seek to secure developments, such as residential extensions, that would be of a good quality of design that maintains or enhances the character and appearance of the building and street scene. As the proposal would be of a poor design it would also be at odds with Paragraphs 17, 58 and 64 of The National Planning Policy Framework. There is nothing before me to suggest the proposal would go beyond the norm to promote high levels of sustainability that could otherwise justify the discordant appearance. 11. The appellants have questioned the relevance of Policy DM 3.4 stating that it only relates to residential extensions that create new dwellings. I do not consider this to be the case as a proper reading of the policy in the context of its supporting text leaves me in no doubt that the policy relates to two types of development – extensions and conversions – and the criteria within the policy should be applied to either. Appeal Decision APP/L2630/D/17/3187155 3 The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 4 St Mary’s Walk with particular reference to outlook 12. The bungalow at 4 St Marys Walk (No 4) is located on lower ground than the appeal site and therefore the proposed extension, which would be close to the boundary and arranged over two floors, would tower over the amenity space directly outside the rear elevation of No 4. The proposed extension would be an unattractive, constant and overbearing presence when occupants of No 4 are sitting in, or using, the area to the immediate rear of their property. As such, it would have an unreasonable impact on their living conditions. 13. Moreover, the angle of the garden at No 4 splays away from the property and therefore the outlook is constrained by the existing boundary treatment with the properties in Olive Avenue. Thus, the area immediately to the rear of No 4 is already quite enclosed and the appeal scheme would compound this sense of enclosure. The extension would be splayed so as to follow the direction of the boundary but this would not wholly mitigate the impact of the extension as a whole, particularly the two storey sections that would contain the staircase. 14. In coming to the view above I note that the occupants of No 4 did not object to the application and have written in support of the proposal, as have the Parish Council. However, I am tasked with assessing the effect of the appeal scheme on the living conditions of the occupants of No 4 in a general sense and not whether the proposal would be acceptable to any particular individual, who may have their own tolerances and sensibilities. 15. I therefore conclude that the proposed extension would harm the living conditions of the occupants of No 4, specifically the outlook from the garden. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy DM 3.4 and DM 3.13 of the DMP, which seek to secure development which would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers by refusing applications that would lead to excessive or unreasonable impacts on eixisting neighbours. Other Matters 16. The proposed extension would enable the property to meet the needs of the appellants and their family, however I have seen nothing to suggest these needs could not be met through a an extension that would be more sensitive to the host property and street scene or from moving to a different property. As such, this is a matter of very limited weight in favour of the appeal scheme. The appellants have referred to other two storey extensions nearby but these do not have the same impact that the appeal scheme would, as they are not as prominent. Conclusion 17. The appeal scheme would be contrary to the development plan taken as a whole and material considerations do not indicate planning permission should be forthcoming in spite of this. Accordingly, the proposal is not sustainable development and for this reason, the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. Graham Chamberlain INSPECTOR