To build a 5 metre two storey extension to the main existing building

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 January 2018 by G P Jones BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 8th January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P0119/D/17/3187812 Sherston, Crossways Lane, Thornbury BS35 3UE  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 David and Diane Till against the decision of South Gloucestershire Council.  The application Ref PT17/1882/F, dated 25 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 3 October 2017.  The development proposed is described as to build a 5 metre two storey extension to the main existing building. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. I have used in the banner heading the description of development as provided on the application form even though this differs from that given on the Council’s decision notice. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is sited within a spacious plot in a reasonably prominent location and forms the south-western end of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings that are located close to the road. Although there are a variety of architectural styles within the area, including smaller scale properties with render or natural stone elevations, this group of four dwellings are generally of a similar and restrained design and this forms a distinct characteristic within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. 5. The proposed extension would be two storeys in height and, at 5 metres wide, would be reasonably close to the width of the existing main dwelling. Although the roof of the proposed extension would be hipped it would continue the ridge line of the existing roof. Furthermore, the front elevation of the proposed extension would not be set back from the existing front elevation. Due to its width, lack of a set back from the front elevation and set down from the roof the proposal would not appear as a subservient extension to the original building. Whilst the front porch would help to break up the overall form of the Appeal Decision APP/P0119/D/17/3187812 2 front elevation, nevertheless the proposal would appear as a bulky extension that would significantly unbalance the character and appearance of this pair of semi-detached properties. 6. Also, the proposal would entail the provision of quite a large chimney attached to the side elevation of the extension. This would give rise to quite a prominent feature within the locality that would be at odds with the surrounding roofscapes and in particular this group of semi-detached dwellings. 7. A side extension to Hazleton, which is the furthest away of the pair of semi- detached dwellings that lie adjacent to the north-east, has been referred to. Although this is a reasonably large side extension, according to the Council roughly 4 metres in width, it has been set back from the front elevation and therefore it reads as a subordinate extension. In this regard it differs from the proposal that is before me. 8. The appellant has referred to three properties in Yate that have been extended and contends that these are of a similar, if not bigger, scale and design as the proposal. Apart from photographs of their frontages, I do not have much information regarding these other properties or the surrounding street scene. However, from the limited evidence available to me it is apparent that one of these dwellings has a side extension that is marginally set back from the main part of the dwelling, and the other pair of semi-detached properties have both been extended and thus are broadly symmetrical to each other. As such, they all differ from the proposal that is before me and thus I afford them little weight in relation to the proposal that is before me. 9. Overall I consider that due to its large scale and its design the extended dwelling and attached chimney would give rise to a building that would appear overly-dominant within the street scene, would unbalance the pair of semi- detached dwellings and thereby would be detrimentally out of keeping with the overall character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal would be contrary to paragraphs 17, 56, 57 and 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy 2006-2027, adopted December 2013 and Policy H4 of the South Gloucestershire local Plan, adopted January 2006. Taken together, these policies and guidance require that new development, including extensions to existing dwellings, is of a high quality design that respects the massing, scale, and proportions of the existing property and the character of the street scene, and enhances the character and distinctiveness of the site and its context. Planning balance and conclusion 10. The proposed extension would provide additional living space and would entail a limited boost to the local economy through the construction work required. However, I consider that the proposal would be of a scale and design that would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. I attach considerable weight to this impact that I have identified and which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits. For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. GP Jones INSPECTOR