Erection of a part two storey part single storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2017 by R W Allen B.Sc PGDip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22nd December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/D/17/3188477 Milford Cottage, 180A Chobham Road, Sunningdale, Ascot SL5 0JA  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 Mark Glover against the decision of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.  The application Ref 17/00765, dated 3 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 September 2017.  The development proposed is erection of a part two storey part single storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached two-storey dwelling which lies adjacent to Chobham Road. It comprises a conventional pitched roof with two gabled elements on the front and rear elevations, and I concur with the appellant’s assertion that the appeal property is not particularly remarkable in design terms. Because of its location and the local topography, the property is widely visible and noticeable in both directions along Chobham Road as well as from a number of vantage points from Chobham Common, which lies on the opposite side of the road. 4. I do not share the appellant’s view in respect to the acceptability of the design of the proposed extension. Rather than appearing as a seamless and natural extension of the property, I find instead that it would result in a complicated and fussy addition, by introducing a number of roof forms that would fail to respect the simple and regular character of the existing dwelling. The proposed gabled features would not successfully replicate or respect its existing counterpart due to the awkwardness of the junction of the proposed roof with a valley gutter and side gable. The fenestration is also undeniably incoherent. 5. While I accept that the proposed extension would be viewed against the backdrop of the existing dwelling and that the ridge height would be much lower than the main roof, it would nonetheless for the reasons give above appear noticeably disjointed and disharmonious, and as such would be unduly Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/17/3188477 2 prominent when viewed from the street. It would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the existing property and the wider area as a result. 6. I agree with the appellant that the size, scale and massing of the proposed extension would not in itself be excessive, immodest or disproportionate against the existing dwelling as advanced by the Council. Nevertheless, this does not outweigh the harm caused by the incoherency of the design that I have identified above. The positioning of other properties in the locality to the road including No 196A Chobham Road does not persuade me to alter my findings. 7. The proposed development would not accord with policies DG1 and H14 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan or with policies NP/DG2.2 and NP/DG3 of the Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan. These state that extensions should not have any adverse effect upon the character or appearance of the original property or neighbouring properties, and that the design of new buildings should be good, compatible, and respect established building lines, plot widths and separation distances between buildings and side boundaries and be of similar proportions with buildings in the surrounding area and of neighbouring properties. Conclusion 8. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. R Allen INSPECTOR