Two storey rear extension providing additional living space at ground and lower ground floor

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 May 2018 by Mike Worden BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/H1033/D/18/3193243 1 Cotton Close, Whaley Bridge, SK23 7GG  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 Keeling against the decision of High Peak Borough Council.  The application Ref HPK/2017/0503, dated 7 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 December 2017.  The development proposed is two storey rear extension providing additional living space at ground and lower ground floor. 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 area with particular regard to streetscene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a house located on a sloping site between Chapel Road and Cotton Close, such that it appears as a two storey property on the Chapel Road frontage and a three storey property from the rear. It has a back garden which is elevated above the street level on Cotton Close and a garage below the garden with a large retaining wall. The house is located in a row of similar properties. The row is broken into a number of blocks which although of similar design are not all of same size and do not have a straight rear line. Nevertheless their block nature, materials, fenestration, and prominence and height above Cotton Close provide a distinct rhythm and pattern to the street scene. 4. Some of the larger blocks project further back which gives the rear elevation of the row, a distinct character. The appeal property is in a block of two houses in a smaller block which projects out to the rear less than its neighbouring block. On the other side of the appeal property there is a driveway and then a row of older terraced properties. At the opposite end of the row to the appeal site, and across Cotton Close, there are detached dwellings. 5. The proposed development is a two storey rear extension which would project out about 3 metres and across most of the width of the house. The proposed extension would have a pitched roof and provide additional accommodation. Appeal Decision APP/H1033/D/18/3193243 2 6. Although there are some conservatories at ground floor along the backs of the houses in the row, there are no two storey extensions. The proposed extension would not be very visible in views from the top of Cotton Close looking down the road because it would be hidden largely by the larger adjacent block. Because of the elevated garden, it would also be largely hidden from the area immediately in front of the garage. However from other points it would be more visible and being the only two storey extension on the whole row would be conspicuous. It would appear as a feature out of rhythm with the rear elevation of the row as a whole. 7. The proposed extension would also combine with the larger adjacent block to create an indent or tunnel effect on the rear of the adjacent house which would accentuate its appearance as being out of rhythm with the row as a whole. The proposed extension would appear as an incongruous and jarring feature which would interrupt the rhythm and pattern along the backs of the properties on Cotton Close. 8. I have taken into account the personal circumstances of the applicants who have specific needs for more family accommodation in their role as foster carers. I have placed moderate weight on this consideration. However, I have found that this benefit would be outweighed by the harm to the character and appearance of the area, which I conclude would result. The proposed extension would be contrary to Policy EQ6 of the High Peak Local Plan (the Local Plan) which seeks to secure high quality design and place making in new developments, and policies S1 and S1a of the Local Plan which promote sustainable development. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, and having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Mike Worden INSPECTOR