Side elevation extension at first floor level over existing ground floor

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 February 2018 by D Guiver LLB (Hons) Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B3030/D/17/3191240 1 Cross Street, Bilsthorpe, Newark NG22 8QY  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 and Mrs Stephen Scott against the decision of Newark & Sherwood District Council.  The application Ref 17/01285/FUL, dated 11 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 27 September 2017.  The development proposed is side elevation extension at first floor level over existing ground floor. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for side elevation extension at first floor level over existing ground floor at 1 Cross Street, Bilsthorpe, Newark NG22 8QY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/01285/FUL, dated 11 July 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan; 1CRST/PP/1; and 1CRST/PP/2. 3) No development shall commence until details 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 details. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with a hipped roof and a flat-roofed side extension providing garage space. The surrounding buildings are a mixture of semi-detached and short terraces of four or so buildings constructed in a similar style with hipped roofs. External surfaces of buildings are predominantly red-brick and render, though the front elevation of the appeal site has been stone-clad and a red-brick porch has been added. Appeal Decision APP/B3030/D/17/3191240 2 The proposal would result in a first-floor extension over the existing garage and would have a hipped roof reflective of the appeal site and the surrounding dwellings. The external surfaces of the extension would be red-brick and render to match the predominant materials in the locality, which can be secured by a condition to protect the overall character and appearance of the area. 4. The proposed extension would rise to a similar height to the existing building at the eaves but the roof ridge would be lower than existing and the front and rear elevations would be set in from the main elevations of the dwelling, mirroring the existing in-set of the garage. The proposal would not increase the footprint of the dwelling but would increase its overall bulk. However, in my opinion the lower roof ridge and recessed walls would ensure that the proposed extension would remain subservient to the existing building. The proposed materials and design would also be in keeping with the existing dwelling and the predominant architectural style in the surrounding area. 5. The appeal site is located close to the junction of Cross Street with Church Street but in my opinion it is not in a prominent position where the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. Between the appeal site and the junction is the dwelling at no. 70 Church Street, also known as ‘Beehive’, which is built at an angle to Church Street to follow the curvature of the road into Cross Street. No. 70 is in a prominent position and dominates the view of the junction such that the appeal site is only clearly visible when some way into Cross Street. At the point where the appeal site becomes clearly visible I consider that the proposal would blend well with the mixture of short terraces and semi-detached properties that characterise dwellings on the street. 6. Consequently, for the reasons given above the proposal would be in accordance with Core Policy 9 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2011 and Policies DM5 and DM6 of the of the Newark and Sherwood Local Development Framework Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document 2013 which together seek to ensure that developments respect the character and appearance of the area in which they are located. Conclusion 7. For the reasons given above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed and that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions necessary in the interests of proper planning and certainty. D Guiver INSPECTOR