Double storey front extension; Rear extension and loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 April 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 15 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/D/18/3195448 Chislehurst, 53 Marine Drive, West Wittering, Chichester PO20 8HQ  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 Charles Sharpe against the decision of Chichester District Council.  The application, Ref. WW/17/01679/DOM, dated 6 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 18 December 2017.  The development proposed is a double storey front extension; Rear extension and loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. I have determined the appeal on the plan numbers referred to in paragraph 3 of the Decision Notice. The main issues are (i) the effect on the character and appearance of the area, and (ii) the effect on the living conditions for adjoining occupiers as regards outlook. Reasons 3. I saw on my visit that the seaward side of Marine Drive is a miscellany of building sizes, designs and sitings such as to limit the extent of definable character, rhythm and consistence of quality in the street scene. However, as the officer’s report in part points out, there is a common theme of a contrast between single storey garages / driveways and parking areas on the north of the plots set against the two storey height of the dwellings positioned to the south, the latter to maximise the sea views. 4. In summary, the appeal scheme comprises extensions to both principal elevations and roof extensions with conversion of the existing loft space to habitable accommodation. The substance of the Council’s objection on the first issue relates to its concern that, through a combination of the building’s proposed overall size, design and external materials, it would appear as incongruous in its context. 5. In my assessment, the extension and conversion of the existing roof space would result in a second floor of considerably greater scale and massing than the existing building. Furthermore, the perception of a building noticeably too Appeal Decision APP/L3815/D/18/3195448 2 large for its site and context would be compounded by a number of other factors. 6. These are (i) the cumulative effect on the building’s scale and massing of the proposed two storey flat roof front extension to Marine Drive where it would be especially prominent in the street scene, and with its stepped relationship with the second floor give an impression of greater depth to the additional bulk; (ii) the fact that the building’s footprint (and therefore to a large extent the second floor footprint) would occupy most of the width of a wider plot than its immediate neighbours, especially No. 51, whilst at the same time extend a substantial depth; (iii) the essentially rectilinear form of the extended building, further accentuated by the prominent ‘sugar cube’ element; (iv) an exacerbation of the visual impact of (iii) by the large scale of the extended roof and the property’s immediate context of the pitched roof and lower roof height(s) of No. 55, and (v) the large-scale glazing on the southern elevation of the second floor, which will reflect the sun and be especially eye-catching from the Solent Way public footpath, as well as giving the impression of inappropriate scale and undue dominance. 7. I have also noted the Council’s criticism of the choice and use of the proposed external materials and their colours. Again, I minded to agree with the officer’s report that there would be too many contrasts in materials and colours that would result in fragmentation of the individual elements of the design. At least some of these would compete rather than harmonise with one another to the overall detriment of the building’s appearance and suitability for its context. 8. I have carefully read the grounds of appeal, mindful firstly that the parties agree that Marine Drive includes a substantial element of diversity and secondly that paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (‘the Framework’) explains that ‘Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles’. 9. However, in this case the fundamental problem on this issue is arguably not so much the design in itself, for which there is always room for negotiation including an element of give and take to reflect the subject’s inherent subjectivity. Rather, in my view it is that this is an over-ambitious scheme that affords too much weight to the need for additional floorspace and exploiting the outstanding seaward views, and too little to the constraints of the site and its setting, the existing diversity of built form notwithstanding. 10. Overall on this issue, I conclude that the proposal would be incongruous as regards scale and design and have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of Marine Drive, in conflict with Policy 33 of the Chichester Local Plan 2014-2029 (‘the Local Plan’) and Section 7: ’Requiring Good Design’ of the Framework. 11. Turning briefly to the second issue, the effect on the outlook for adjoining occupiers at No. 55, the combination of the two storey front extension and the ‘sugar cube’ would to some extent restrict the views from the side-facing first floor dormer windows. However, as these windows are from an internal hallway rather than a habitable room, I do not find that there would be unacceptable Appeal Decision APP/L3815/D/18/3195448 3 harm caused to the outlook in conflict with Local Plan Policy 33 or with the core planning principles of the Framework. 12. I have had regard to all other matters raised but have neither seen nor read anything to alter my conclusion on the first issue that the proposal, in particular the roof extensions / loft conversion and northern extension, would be unacceptable for the reasons explained. 13. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR