First floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 April 2018 by H Lock BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D1590/D/18/3192840 338 Southbourne Grove, WESTCLIFF-ON-SEA, Essex, SS0 0AQ  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 Derek Buxton against the decision of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council.  The application Ref. 17/01711/FULH, dated 26 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 December 2017.  The development proposed is first floor side extension. 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 appeal property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is one of two detached houses that appear to have been built in the same original design and form, albeit ‘handed’. The pair are located behind properties fronting Southbourne Grove and Bridgwater Drive, although there are glimpses of the appeal property in gaps between these frontage buildings. The appeal property has been extended at ground floor level on both sides and to the front. These extensions and different materials mean that the appeal property and the neighbouring house, 340 Southbourne Grove, are not identical, but the original distinctive roof form remains discernible on both properties. 4. This distinctive form comprises two linked mono-pitched gable ends. The proposed first floor extension would introduce a shallow hipped roof that would be at odds with the main roof and would undermine its form. Although existing extensions at the property have hipped roofs, these do not affect the roof profile of the main dwelling in the same manner, as they are confined to ground level. When viewed from the front, side and rear, the proposal would appear awkward and incongruous on the property. 5. Whilst I acknowledge that the proposal would be set back from the shared drive, and would be set in from the front and rear gables, it would nevertheless be a large and discordant addition to the property that would detract from its character and appearance. I do not share the appellant’s view that set backs of 0.5m would materially reduce its bulk or maintain balance to the building. Appeal Decision APP/D1590/D/18/3192840 2 Despite its backland location, the proposal would be visible from public view and its adverse visual impact would be perceived from outside of the site. As such, this adverse impact would also affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would not add to the overall quality of the area and respect the character of the site, its local context and surroundings in matters including size, scale, form, massing and detailed design as required by Policy DM1 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Local Planning Framework Development Management Document July 2015 (DMD). 6. There have been three refused applications at the site for a first floor side extension, including one appeal dismissal1. The dismissed scheme was much larger than now proposed and very different in design and form, and the proposal is not as deep as the last refused application (ref. 16/02137/FULH). However, despite these amendments, the current scheme has not resolved the design difficulties of merging a hipped roof with the distinctive original gable ended roof form. 7. The appellant has identified a number of properties in the vicinity which he advises have altered hip-to-gable roofs and large rear dormer windows. However, limited information has been supplied regarding the circumstances of their construction and the planning policies against which they were assessed. In any case, none of these examples are directly comparable to the design and effect of the appeal proposal, and as such offer little support. 8. The appellant considers that the design of the original building does not have any particular architectural merit and that the front elevation of the property is quite bland. However, rather than adding shape, interest and a new dimension to the property, I consider that the proposal would introduce a further feature to a complex building arrangement that would undermine the distinctive form at first floor level. Regardless of its backland location, the national and local aim to secure high quality design applies to individual buildings, as these cumulatively contribute to the built environment and sense of place. 9. I share the assessments of the appellant and the Council that the proposal would not result in material harm to the amenity of surrounding residents. However, I find no conflict between an absence of harm on this point and the overarching conclusions of the Council, as suggested by the appellant. The proposal may not cause harm2 to a degree that the living conditions of local residents would be harmed, but it would still create a visually unsympathetic development to the detriment of the surrounding area. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area contrary to the overarching aim to secure high quality development set out in Policies CP4 and KP2 of the Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy 2007, and DMD Policies DM1, and DM3, which amongst other criteria requires building additions to make a positive contribution to the character of the original building and the surrounding area, and to adopt a scale that is respectful and subservient to that of the original building; and with design guidance set out in the Design and Townscape Guide 2009. 1 Ref. APP/D1590/D/13/2209112 – first floor side extension over existing garage and to side of main house. 2 Having regard to privacy, overlooking, outlook, noise and disturbance, visual enclosure, pollution, and daylight and sunlight, as set out in DMD Policy DM1. Appeal Decision APP/D1590/D/18/3192840 3 Conclusion 11. The National Planning Policy Framework establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and part of its environmental strand is to contribute to protecting and enhancing the built environment. A core planning principle of the Framework is to always seek to secure high quality design, but for the reasons given above the proposal would not comply with this principle and would not be sustainable development supported through the Framework. As a consequence, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. H Lock INSPECTOR