Two storey side and rear and single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 February 2018 by Rachael A Bust BSc (Hons) MA MSc LLM MIEnvSci MInstLM MCMI MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J3015/D/17/3187189 9 St Patrick’s Road, Nuthall, NG16 1ED  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 J Sanghera against the decision of Broxtowe Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/00338/FUL, dated 10 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 28 July 2017.  The development proposed is two storey side and rear and single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side and rear and single storey rear extension at 9 St Patrick’s Road, Nuthall, NG16 1ED in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00338/FUL, dated 10 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: Existing Plan, Block Plan and Elevations, drawing no. SG/17/05/04/01, dated 05/2017; Existing and Proposed Block Plans drawing no. SG/17/05/04/03 Rev A, dated 07/2017; and Proposed Plans and Elevations drawing no. SG/17/05/04/02 Rev C, dated 07/2017. 3) No development, other than the demolition of the outbuilding and garage, shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. No 9 St Patrick’s Road is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with gable ends in a red/brown brick located within an established residential housing estate. It has retained the original single storey flat roofed outbuilding attached to the western elevation. A pre-fabricated single garage has been erected on the Appeal Decision APP/J3015/D/17/3187189 2 western boundary. A modest sized rear garden extends to the north to the rear boundaries of similar properties on Philip Avenue. 4. The wider estate incorporates some pairs or small groups of dwellings set at angles. As such it does not form a rigid and linear pattern of built development. No 9 is one of a small group of 4 such dwellings set at an angle to the highway creating a semi-circular, crescent shape. The group is set back from the highway and faces the junction with Hazel Drive. Consequently those dwellings set at angles, such as No 9, have a wider than average frontage. The group occupies a prominent position in the street scene and is clearly visible from the southern approach from Hazel Drive. 5. The appeal proposal is seeking to significantly extend the existing dwelling with additions to the side and rear. The Council does not dispute the principle of extending the appeal property. However, their concerns relate to the 2-storey side extension in that it would be overly prominent and out of proportion with the existing dwelling. Consequently unbalance the existing symmetry created with attached neighbour No 11 which does not have a similar extension. 6. The proposed 2-storey side extension would project some 4 metres to the west. As a consequence of the siting of No 9 there is sufficient space to accommodate a side extension of size of projection and still retain a gap between No 9 and its unattached neighbour at No 7 to avoid creating a terracing effect or be overly prominent in the street scene. 7. The appellant contends that a revised plan was submitted with the side extension having a setback of 0.5 metres from the front elevation of the existing dwelling. However, the latest drawing reference SG/17/05/04/02 Rev C which has been confirmed by the Council as the one upon which it made its decision, illustrates a set-back of 0.33 metres from the front elevation. The same drawing indicates a marginal reduction in ridge height from the existing dwelling. 8. It is considered to be established practice to incorporate a setback from the front elevation and a step down in ridge height to indicate the extension is subordinate. In this regard I did see on my site visit other 2-storey side extensions on similar properties within the surrounding area, such as No 83 Larkfield Road and No 2 Philip Avenue. They were both set-back at first floor level from the front elevation of their host dwelling and stepped down from the ridge. However, there was minimal setback from on both properties at the ground floor level. I have been provided with no Supplementary Planning Guidance or Document to indicate a specific requirement for setback distances or reduction in ridge height. Consequently it is left to be a subjective judgement by the decision maker in consideration of the context. 9. The existing gable end roof design would be retained, albeit it with a marginal reduction in ridge height. The front elevation would incorporate windows to match those in the existing. Consequently, this would create a symmetrical appearance within No 9 itself. It could be argued that any extension to No 9 could unbalance the symmetry as No 11 does not currently have a side extension. However, I do not find that this lack of symmetry in this instance would result in a level of harm sufficient to dismiss the appeal. 10. The Council has no concerns with either the proposed single storey or the proposed 2-storey rear extensions. I have no reason to disagree. Appeal Decision APP/J3015/D/17/3187189 3 11. I find the appeal proposal is acceptable and would not harm the appearance of the host property. Accordingly it does not conflict with saved Policy H9 of the Broxtowe Local Pan, adopted 2004 and Aligned Core Strategy Policy 10, adopted 2014. These policies seek, amongst other things, that development is in keeping with the original building and the street scene. The Council has also cited Policy 17 of the emerging Part 2 Local Plan 2017-2028. As this plan has reached the formal publication stage it is gaining weight within the decision making process, however I cannot afford it full weight as it is has yet to reach adoption. Other matters 12. The appellant has made a general reference to other properties in Nottingham City Council area having been granted panning permission. I have not been provided with any evidence relating these other such properties and as such I am unable to give this matter any weight in my decision. In any event, the appeal proposal has been assessed against the policies of the development plan for Broxtowe and the local context. 13. I note the concerns raised by the appellant in relation to the handling of the application by the Council. However, this is a procedural issue which does not concern the planning merits of the case. Accordingly, I have not attached any weight to this matter. Conclusion 14. I find the appeal proposal acceptable and planning permission is granted subject to conditions. In addition to the standard conditions relating to implementation and approved plans for certainty, I have included a condition requiring materials to be approved by the Council in order to protect the appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding properties. Rachael A Bust INSPECTOR