Kitchen extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 June 2018 by David Wyborn BSc(Hons), MPhil, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: Monday, 09 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W1145/D/18/3195391 Ladford Mill, Road from Rowden Chapel to Ladford Mill Cross, Shebbear, Beaworthy EX21 5QY  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 & Mrs Williams against the decision of Torridge District Council.  The application Ref 1/1153/2017/FUL, dated 19 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 31 January 2018.  The development proposed is a kitchen extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a kitchen extension at Ladford Mill, Road from Rowden Chapel to Ladford Mill Cross, Shebbear, Beaworthy EX21 5QY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 1/1153/2017/FUL, dated 19 November 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans; 100/200, 100/201 and 100/202. 3) No development shall commence until samples 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 samples. 4) No development shall commence until details of a scheme for the retention of the existing hedge around the frontage of the extension has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of any extra planting and a minimum height at which the hedge shall be retained. Once approved the hedge shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the agreed scheme. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Appeal Decision APP/W1145/D/18/3195391 2 Reasons 3. Ladford Mill is a two storey house with an attached barn converted into additional residential accommodation. The house fronts onto the road and is in the vicinity of Ladford Barn and Mill Cottage. 4. Ladford Mill is linear in form with a substantial front porch. The main house has first floor slate hanging whilst the barn elevations are white render with a base of exposed stone. Both sections of the house have a pitched, natural slate roof. 5. Much of the front garden of the house has an open aspect to the road. However, to the right hand side there is a bank, with retaining walling, and established hedge planting that encloses a modest sized courtyard area. The extension would be positioned within this courtyard area. 6. While the house has a linear form and the extension would project forward further than the porch, the appeal proposal would, when viewed from the road, be substantially screened by the hedge. In terms of Ladford Mill itself, the hedge screen and banking would mean that any views of the proposed extension would not be influential on the overall character of the house as the main public views would still be of the other more exposed aspects of the façade. 7. Furthermore, the extension would be only a small additional element in the immediate surroundings because of the nearby two storey Ladford Barn, which projects close to and is perpendicular with the road, and other built development in the vicinity. Consequently, in these views from the road the appeal extension would have only a minor and insubstantial influence on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. 8. The extension would be accessed via an enlarged window opening and the generous eaves overhang would provide a shadow line under the roof, reducing the appearance of the full height windows. While flat roofs are not a feature of the main house the flat roof element of the design ensures that the bulk of the addition would be minimised. Importantly, the flat roof is positioned under the hanging slate so would not interrupt the horizontal emphasis that this feature provides along the frontage of the house. 9. The materials would be compatible with the host building in this case because the glass and slim timber roof form will give a lighter appearance to the extension, reducing the effect of the addition on the host building and ensuring it would be a subservient in appearance. The end wall finished in vertical timber would be an appropriate transition to the grass bank of the side garden. Together with the single storey form and the siting to one side of the façade, the changes to the character and appearance of the host building would be acceptable. 10. The Council is concerned with the potential loss of the hedge and that this would expose the appeal proposal to public view. The appellant has indicated that this hedge screening would be retained and strengthened and I have considered the appeal on this basis. Consequently in any approval it would be necessary to include a condition to retain the hedge at an agreed height and with additional planting where appropriate. Appeal Decision APP/W1145/D/18/3195391 3 11. Having regard to the combination of circumstances set out above, the balance falls in favour of the proposals as the form, design and location of the extension are appropriate to the house and its setting. Consequently, the appeal development would not harm the character and appearance of the host building or the surrounding area and thereby comply with policies DVTC2, DVT6, DVT7 and HSC4 of the Torridge District Local Plan 1997-2011, the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance which seek to ensure development is compatible within its context. Conditions 12. The standard time limit is required together with a condition listing the conditions in the interests of certainty. The Council has suggested a condition requiring matching external materials, however, given the alternative materials proposed I consider it is necessary for samples to be submitted for approval in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area. 13. For the reasons explained above, and in the interests of protecting the character of the area, it is necessary to include a condition requiring the retention of the hedge at an agreed height and with any additional planting as required. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, and subject to the identified conditions, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. David Wyborn INSPECTOR