Demolition of existing single storey side extension with garage. Erection of a two storey side extension providing garage, dining, utility and master bedroom (re-submission of 17/504275/FULL)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 March 2018 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U2235/D/18/3195401 1 Marian Square, Staplehurst, Tonbridge, Kent, TN12 0SQ.  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 Philip Wickenden against the decision of Maidstone Borough Council.  The application ref: 17/505680/FULL, dated 8 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 15 January 2018.  The development proposed is demolition of existing single storey side extension with garage. Erection of a two storey side extension providing garage, dining, utility and master bedroom (re-submission of 17/504275/FULL). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the host building and that of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. This property, which has a return frontage to Stanley Road, comprises one of a pair of modern, semi-detached houses located on an estate of similar detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings. There is an existing single storey side extension to the property, which closely abuts the back edge of pavement to Stanley Road. This houses a kitchen extension and a bedroom, being set back behind the front elevation of no. 1 by just over 5m. 4. The scheme before me proposes the erection of a two storey side extension that would also be set back from the front elevation by 5m but would project an additional 2m further to the rear. It would also be sited very close to the back edge of pavement to Stanley Road, from which it would be seen as an overbearing, unrelieved brick structure some 8m in depth. 5. Chapter 7 (Requiring good design) of the Framework1 sets out national policy with regard to the design of built development. Amongst other matters, para- graph 61 requires that planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the 1 The National Planning Policy Framework. Appeal Decision APP/U2235/D/18/3195401 2 natural, built and historic environment. These sentiments are also contained in Policy DM 1 of the Local Plan2, which sets out the principles of good design. Policy DM 9 relates specifically to residential extensions and contains a number of criteria against which proposals will be judged. 6. The scheme before me would replace the existing single storey side extension. That structure is unobtrusive and, although set back behind the building line, it is generally in keeping with and subservient to the host building and the appearance of the street scene. 7. The two storey extension now proposed would have a similar footprint to the main house and, by virtue of its scale, height and siting, would fail to relate unobtrusively to the host building as required by Criterion 1 i. of Policy DM 9. Furthermore, having regard to its proximity to the back edge of pavement it would appear as a dominant and overbearing structure when viewed from Stanley Road. The projection of the extension in front of the building line of nos. 37/39 Stanley Road would also be out of context and at odds with the established character of the estate. 8. I therefore find upon the main issue that development as proposed would be harmful to the established character and appearance of the host building and that of the surrounding area, contrary to national policy in the Framework as referred to above and Policies DM 1 and DM 9 of the Local Plan. Other Matters 9. My attention was directed to a two storey extension that has been constructed at 11 Knowles Walk opposite, which has a return frontage to Stanley Road also. 10. That extension is set marginally further away from the back edge of pavement and does not project rearwards to the same degree as is proposed in this case. Importantly, it includes a single storey element to the flank elevation. This has the effect of reducing the impact of the structure as viewed from Stanley Road. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should fail. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR 2 The Maidstone Borough Local Plan (adopted 25 October 2017).