Side extension plus porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 May 2018 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 May 2018 Appeal Ref:APP/W3520/D/18/3195130 6 Dove Close, Debenham IP14 6RR • 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 A Bloomfield against the decision of Mid Suffolk District Council. • The application Ref DC/17/05101, dated 9 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 January 2018. • The development proposed is side extension plus porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 5 Dove Close, with regard to privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached chalet style bungalow located in a residential estate that has a mix of dwelling types, including bungalows, chalet bungalows and two storey properties. 4. No 6 is a modestly-sized dwelling with a single storey element to the side and an open front garden area without boundary treatments that is a common feature of the surrounding estate. The garden area to the side is relatively generous and is the location of the proposed extension. 5. While it would be possible to accommodate additional development of the scale proposed within the curtilage, the extension would more than double the width of the current frontage of the dwelling and would be of similar height. As such, it would be disproportionately wide in relation to the original dwelling, adding considerable bulk and mass and harmfully undermining its existing proportions, appearing as an overbearing and dominant, rather than subordinate, feature. The front roof slope would match that of the existing dwelling, but the shallow pitched rear-facing twin gables would be an incongruous addition that, together Appeal Decision APP/W3520/D/18/3195130 2 with the large vertically-aligned rear windows, would not integrate effectively with the original design of the host dwelling. I agree with the Council that the extent of the unrelieved side elevation in a prominent position would add to the visual dominance of the extension relative to the form of original dwelling. Moreover, it would harmfully unbalance the highly uniform pair of semi- detached dwellings. 6. Properties that are visible in the surrounding area in Dove Close are unaltered and reflect their original form, which is of uniform semi-detached pairs or short terraces of dwellings with dual pitched roofs. The open aspect to the side of No 6 means that the proposed extension would be highly visible from within the street scene and the rear would also be prominent from the public realm and nearby gardens and houses. From these views the harmful effects of the scale and design of the extension described above would be readily apparent, both in relation to the host dwelling and by contrast to the uniform design and layout of surrounding properties. The porch to the front would be a relatively minor addition which would not be harmful. 7. I have had regard to the appellant’s reference to other extensions within Debenham. From the photographs provided the developments at Lock Close and Gardeners Road are of more modest scale than the appeal proposal and reflect the design of the host dwelling with pitched roof forms. The first example at Andrews Close does present a similar form of extension but this does not appear to be as wide as the current proposal in relation to the host dwelling. It is not possible to discern the effects that the other example from Andrews Close has in relation to its surrounding area. 8. From the information provided and for the reasons given, none of these other examples provide a direct precedent for the effects of the proposal already found, which relate to the scale, design and appearance of the proposed extension as a whole in its specific setting. Changes to the appearance of the ensuite room’s window, as suggested, would have limited impact on the overall harmful effects. 9. I acknowledge that there were no objections to the proposal. However, given the permanent nature of the change proposed, the effects need to be considered in the long term, with regard to both current and future occupiers of and visitors to the surrounding area. 10. Accordingly, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Consequently, it is contrary to Policies GP1, H18 and SB2 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan, which require development to be in keeping with the size and design of the existing dwelling, and to maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the surroundings. Living conditions 11. The rear elevation of No 6 faces towards the side boundary of No 5 to the south west. The additional depth to the rear would not bring the appeal property significantly closer to the shared boundary. Nonetheless, the change in fenestration with the large vertically aligned upper floor windows would materially increase the potential for overlooking the neighbouring property and its garden, leading to a loss of privacy. Appeal Decision APP/W3520/D/18/3195130 3 12. I note that the appellant would be willing to change the size of the windows, but this does not have a direct bearing on the appeal decision as I am required to consider the proposal as submitted. It would be possible to consider the imposition of a condition to require the windows to include obscured glass to maintain privacy. However, this is less than ideal from the perspective of the outlook for the occupiers of the habitable room. 13. Therefore, for these reasons, the proposed extension would result in material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 5 Dove Close, with regard to privacy. As such, it is contrary to Policy H18 of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan insofar as it requires extensions not to materially affect the amenities of neighbours. 14. For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR