Two storey extension to rear following demolition of existing extension, remodelling of existing dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 January 2018 by S Jones MA DipLP an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15th February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/D/17/3188846 5 Main Street, Elloughton, Brough HU15 1JN  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 Dr K Jackson against the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council.  The application Ref DC/17/02393/PLF/WESTES, dated 12 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 September 2017.  The development proposed is two storey extension to rear following demolition of existing extension, remodelling of existing dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of 3 Main Street with regard to overbearing, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Elloughton Conservation Area (CA). Reasons Living Conditions 3. The appeal site is a modest two storey semi-detached dwelling inside the Elloughton Conservation Area among other dwellings of a variety of styles and sizes. The adjoining semi-detached at No 5 has been extensively remodelled and extended, and it is considerably larger than No 3 as a result. The relationship between the dwellings is shown on the Existing Site and Roof Plan ref S002. No 5 also has a considerably more extensive rear curtilage than No 3. The semi-detached dwellings both have a single storey rear projections and there is a gravelled access alongside No 5 that leads to the rear of No 5. Leading off that access is a pedestrian access and gateway through to No 3. Partial views towards the rear of No 5 and the land further to the rear can be glimpsed down the access. 4. As shown on Plan and the Design and Access Statement, the proposal at No 5 would involve a two storey extension behind the existing roofline to cover the whole of the existing footprint replacing the current single storey rear extension. It would run along next to the single storey rear extension at No 3. I have had regard to the Proposed Extension Overlay supplied by the appellant. I understand that the development would lie to the north side of No 3 so that it Appeal Decision APP/E2001/D/17/3188846 2 would not restrict light to the adjoining semi-detached. I appreciate that the outlook at No 3 is already restricted to some extent by the boundary walls and the existing extension at No 5. The existing rear extension at No 5 has a slightly higher roof which ends short of the rear of No 3. It is not as tall or bulky as the proposed development. I find the new two storey section would be more substantial. It would be higher and bulkier than the existing building along the side and rear aspects. As a result it would dominate and enclose the significantly smaller rear of No 3 to a greater extent. There would be a limited effect on the rear bedroom window at No 3 as it is low down, but views of the predominating larger flank wall would still be seen when lying in bed or sitting in the room. Views from the garden would be towards the larger flank wall and taller pitched roof. This would have an adverse effect on the outlook from the rear and particularly on enjoyment of the rear garden at No 3. 5. There would be a small new single storey rear section with a rooflight over the proposed kitchen extending past the end of No3. This is not shown on the overlay. It would have a flat roof but I find it would further enclose No 3 along the side because on Plan P-001-Rev B it appears that it would run across roughly the full width of the rear of No 5 and slightly further along the side boundary than the existing extensions. The rear entrance to No 3 would open close by the side wall of the black timber clad single storey extension which I consider would be oppressive and overbearing. Overall the development would have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 3. 6. I conclude it would thereby conflict with Policy ENV1 of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council Local Plan Strategy Document and Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to protect the living conditions of residents and secure a good standard of amenity for all future occupiers. Character and Appearance 7. In determining this appeal I must have regard to whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA in terms of s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990 and paragraphs 132-134 of the National Planning Policy Framework which deal with designated heritage assets such as the CA. 8. The appeal property forms part of the older heart of Elloughton village in the original street pattern and so contributes to the significance of the CA as described in the Elloughton Conservation Area Appraisal 2010. Having said that, the centre of the village has a mixture of ages and styles of dwelling in this part of the CA, with a variety of materials used. 9. In my view the two semi-detached dwellings already appear distinct from each other since No 5 is significantly larger and rendered while No 3 is brick. According to the CA Appraisal, colour wash and render were considered an appropriate treatment for buildings including some of the Listed Buildings in the CA, and chimney treatments were varied also. 10. Furthermore, the increase in scale and footprint at No 5 would not be particularly visible from the frontage of the properties, albeit visible from adjacent back gardens and in glimpses along the gravel access. The majority of the development would be rendered over. Timber cladding would be an unusual feature that would not reflect the characteristics of the CA. However, it would be limited to a single storey section of the extension that would not be readily Appeal Decision APP/E2001/D/17/3188846 3 visible between the surrounding properties. The proposal would reinstate sliding sash windows in the front elevation and reinstate the chimney stack, which would be minor improvements. I also appreciate that the new extension would improve the energy efficiency of No 5, although this would not affect the external appearance within the CA. 11. I find the remodelling and extension to No 5 would not be harmful or out of character in the CA as a whole. On balance I conclude that the extension has a neutral effect overall, and would not fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. It would not harm its significance, and so would not conflict with the Framework or the development plan. 12. I conclude the development would thereby preserve the character and appearance of the CA and so it would not conflict with the Policies ENV1 and ENV3 of the East Riding of Yorkshire Local Plan Strategy Document, and the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to securing development that is appropriate and protects heritage assets. Other Matters 13. I appreciate the concerns raised by No 3 regarding the new development blocking the access to No 3 or withdrawing support to its walls or reducing its financial value. I also note the correspondence between the appellant and the Council about the development. However, I must make clear that these matters have not had a significant bearing on my determination of this appeal on its planning merits. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. S Jones INSPECTOR