Erection of a two storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 March 2018 by Kenneth Stone BSc Hons DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T5720/D/18/3193488 25 Mount Road, Mitcham, Surrey CR4 3EZ.  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 John Hoong against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Merton.  The application Ref 17/P3657, dated 29 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 December 2017.  The development proposed is erection of a two storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located in a post war estate of closely spaced, primarily semi-detached two storey houses. The properties are arranged around a central oval that has more recently been developed and accommodates short terraces of two storey houses. The general scale, mass and bulk of the properties in the locality are relatively similar with some minor variations in architectural detailing. The materials on the older original properties are from a limited palette of pebble dash or rough render with concrete roof tiles. 4. The appeal property is set close to the junction with Farewell Place, where the pair it sits as a part of mirror the pair on the other side of the entrance to Farewell Place. The original layout has these two pairs set away from the junction with the first properties into Farewell Place set back. The arrangement results in an open character at the junction. The proposed extension would intrude into this open area at two storeys and reduce the sense of openness around the junction. I note that a single storey extension has been added to number 27 on the opposite side of the junction but the limited height, bulk and mass of that extension is less intrusive than would result from this proposal. 5. The proposed extension would have no relief in its form or shape to differentiate it from the original property and would substantially extend the length of the front elevation of the semi-detached pair and the roof form. The extension would intrude into and restrict views in between the properties at the Appeal Decision APP/T5720/D/18/3193488 2 junction of Mount Road and Farewell Place and this would result in the area appearing to have a more cramped and less open aspect, to the detriment of the street scene. 6. The proposed extension would be a large, bulky addition to the existing property which does not respect or complement the design of the original property. The general proportions, form, shape and bulk of the original property would be subsumed within the extended property with no attempt to reflect the original elements of the building. This would conflict with the Council’s aspiration for a subservient extension which would better reflect and acknowledge the original shape and form of the host property. 7. Whilst materials to match could be used to integrate the proposed extension this would not overcome my concerns regarding the bulk, mass and siting of the extension. I also note that the appellant suggests that there are a number of other examples where two storey extensions have been developed in the locality, however none hold a similar position in the street scene 8. For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposed extension would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies 7.4 and 7.6 in the London Plan, Policy CS14 in the London Borough of Merton Core Strategy 2011 and Policies DM D2 and DM D3 in the Sites and Policies Plan and Policies Maps 2014. Collectively these seek to ensure high quality development that complements and respects the character of the area and reinforces local distinctiveness. This is consistent with the core planning principles set out in paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Other Matters 9. The appellant has contended that the extension is required due to the family size and to act as retirement accommodation. However, these are private interest of the family and planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. These circumstances are specific to the occupants of the property at this point in time and may change. In these circumstances I am satisfied that the harm that I have identified would not be outweighed by any such interests. 10. I note the appellant has suggested, in their appeal statement, that they would be prepared to incorporate a set back and lowered ridge line on the roof. However, that is not the proposal considered by the Council nor is it reflected in the plans before me. I have considered the appeal on the basis of the plans considered by the Council and the plans that are before me. Overall conclusions 11. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Kenneth Stone INSPECTOR