Ground and first floor extensions to existing single storey dwellinghouse

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 March 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N1730/D/17/3190458 22 Beech Ride, Fleet, GU52 7XQ  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 Lee and Dawn Burnham against the decision of Hart District Council.  The application Ref 17/01180/HOU, dated 15 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 24 October 2017.  The development proposed is ground and first floor extensions to existing single storey dwellinghouse. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is bungalow constructed in dark red brick and dark concrete roof tiles on a sizeable plot. Whilst there are a mix of bungalows and two storey homes the locality is one with a high degree of architectural uniformity, virtually consistency of materials, and generous soft landscape to which the subtle buildings allow some visual prominence. The buildings, gardens and streets combine to create an area of pleasing established residential character and attractive appearance. The proposal is as described above. The works involve extensions to the front, side and rear of the existing dwelling at ground floor level and extensions to the existing roof space to create first floor accommodation. The principal materials proposed are slate tiles, render and powder coated aluminium windows. 4. I would agree with the Appellants that the proposal is effectively a ‘rebuild’ or replacement dwelling and the one needs to consider this scheme in that light rather than the thinking of extensions. This would effectively be a new home of striking modern design and the question is, would it be suitable on this plot? 5. I touch upon the homogeny of the area above and this makes the neighbourhood strikingly locally distinctive. In many locations new modern design would be entirely appropriate, uplifting, and a welcome addition to a streetscene. Unfortunately this is not one such location because of its current Appeal Decision APP/N1730/D/17/3190458 2 consistency which is a pleasing attribute. The planned property would be far too strident in this context. The scheme would have a major gable where locally, when found, they are subsidiary, and it would not draw upon the hipped approach to roofing which is virtually universal in these environs. Fenestration would be of enormous scale relative to windows found in the neighbourhood. External materials would draw nothing from the local idiom. The building would appear over-large and excessively visually striking distracting from soft landscape and the streetscene generally. 6. Regrettably therefore, I would assess the planned structure as an atypical one which would be incongruous and obtrusive. It would be unduly eye-catching and harmful to the area’s visual merits and local character. This scheme would not be an appropriate way to increase accommodation on this site and any attempt to do so at the contextually comfortable existing home would need to be in a more subtle manner taking cues from the host property and those around. 7. The Hart District Local Plan includes Saved Policies GEN1, GEN4 and URB16 which are relevant. Taken together and amongst other matters, they seek good quality development, with suitable design, scale and materials such that local distinctiveness and urban design qualities are protected and the streetscene and local character are safeguarded. I conclude that the proposal would conflict with these policies. Other matters 8. I can fully appreciate why the Appellants would wish to increase the accommodation at this property and the aim to achieve modern standards and increase sustainability credentials are clearly positive factors. I considered other development examples drawn to my attention but found none of them to be directly comparable by reason of location, context or design. None of these would set a benchmark or be a precedent for the scheme before me which I must in any event determine on its own merits. I do note that the locality is not a Conservation Area. I would not wish to stifle innovation or impose architectural style or taste; it is however entirely appropriate for me to have particular regard to context when assessing any scheme. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellants but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above. 9. I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered and the development plan policies which I cite mirror relevant objectives within that document. Overall conclusion 10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR