To raise roof, convert loft, remove existing conservatory and to construct new side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 May 2018 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U1240/D/18/3195948 7 Verne Road, Verwood, BH31 6EU  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 Banks against the decision of East Dorset District Council.  The application Ref 3/17/3269/HOU, dated 16 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 January 2018.  The development proposed is to raise roof, convert loft, remove existing conservatory and to construct new side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to raise roof, convert loft, remove existing conservatory and to construct new side extension at 7 Verne Road, Verwood, BH31 6EU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/17/3269/HOU, dated 16 November 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drg Nos J383-010, J383-011, J383-012, J383- 013 and J383-014. 3) With the exception of the cladding for the dormer windows, the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) Before the garage is occupied or utilised the first 5m of the vehicle access, measured from the rear edge of the highway, shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The access shall be permanently maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter. Preliminary Matter 2. Part of the proposed development includes an integral garage to the side of the dwelling with access facing forward towards Verne Road. The application form Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/18/3195948 2 explicitly stated that no new or altered vehicle access was proposed to or from the public highway and neither was any such proposal shown on the application drawings. At the time of my visit I saw that a new crossover for the appeal property had been constructed onto Verne Road. The appellants have advised that this was installed by the Highway Authority following a successful application for a ‘Vehicle Access Licence’. The crossover gives access to the frontage of No 7 where at the time of my visit a driveway and hardstand appeared to be under construction. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and upon highway safety. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. Verne Road is a residential no-through road with Stanley Close, a short cul-de- sac, branching off to one side. The appeal property occupies a corner plot at the junction between Verne Road and Stanley Close. The area is characterised by low rise dwellings, including some with accommodation in their roofs and dormer windows. 5. No 7 is a traditional bungalow with a conservatory extension to the side and set away from the return boundary to Stanley Close. It is proposed to replace the conservatory with a side extension to the main dwelling that would in turn be remodelled in its form and appearance, including with a raised ridge height. 6. Despite the increased scale of the building and its altered appearance, the proposal would merely reflect an alternative style of chalet bungalow for the area. This would sit comfortably amongst the surrounding mixed architecture, which includes dormer features and some variation to the roof heights and shapes of dwellings along Verne Road. 7. The Council is concerned that, due to the height and proximity of the extension to the side boundary, the proposal would reduce the openness of the junction and sense of space. 8. In my assessment the area’s sense of space and openness, including at the junction and entrance into Stanley Close, is derived principally from the grass verges that are set between the kerb lines and footpaths on both sides of Verne Road. This is further reinforced by the wide swept entrance to Stanley Close and the triangular shaped verges to each side. Notwithstanding, there is a noticeable shift in character beyond the entrance into Stanley Close. There are no verges along its length but instead a much narrower vista with the back edge of the pavements enclosed to each side by reasonably tall timber fence panels. This is in marked contrast to the much more verdant street scene along Verne Road. Any openness to Stanley Close is only really appreciated at its terminal end where the dwellings are seen to be grouped around a turning head in a more spacious setting. 9. The extension would be no closer to the side return boundary than the existing conservatory which the Council points out is between around 1.6m and 1.2m Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/18/3195948 3 from the back edge of the pavement along Stanley Close (not Spencer Close as stated within the officer’s report). In my view this would provide ample separation with the side boundary to ensure that the extension would not appear overbearing or unduly dominant along the vista into or out of Stanley Close, regardless of the recessed position of No 9 Verne Road on the opposite corner. Although the proposal would be more prominent than the existing conservatory to the side of No 7, the features that contribute to the area’s sense of space and openness would be unaffected. Highway Safety 10. The Council’s second reason for the refusal states that it is not clear whether the proposal would be likely to endanger road safety or result in other highway problems and that it has not been demonstrated that the development would provide safe access onto the existing transport network 11. The subsequent installation of the crossover has addressed the Council’s concern that no access was shown to the proposed garage. I have also noted that the Highway Authority commented on the planning application that, whilst an access would be close to the junction of Verne Road with Stanley Close, there was not sufficient highway safety concerns to be able to recommend that permission be refused. From my own observations I saw that there was ample space to the front of No 7 to enable a vehicle waiting to access the garage to stand clear of the highway. Even if that had not been the case, there is no evidence before me to suggest that any vehicle waiting on the highway would be a hazard to other road users. Conditions 12. A condition specifying the relevant drawings is necessary as this provides certainty. To safeguard the character and appearance of the area, it is necessary to ensure that the works are carried out in facing brickwork and roofing materials to match the existing dwelling. There is no evidence to suggest that a turning space in front of No 7 must be provided to avoid harm to highway safety and I saw other examples along Verne Road of properties where on-site turning for a vehicle was not possible. No condition to this effect is necessary. 13. Although the hard surfacing of space to the front of No 7 was not part of the proposal, from the information available to me it is clear that the proposed garage is clearly intended to be used to store/park vehicles and to access it for that purpose a drive must be provided. As such, exercising control over details of such works would be relevant to the development to be permitted. I share the Council’s concern that the choice of materials to be used for the driveway is important for reasons that relate to highway safety concerning the potential spill of loose material onto the road as well as possible surface water run-off as referred to within the officer’s report. As these works to the appeal site were incomplete at the time of my visit and no substantial details have been provided, it is both reasonable and necessary to control these matters. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given, I am satisfied that the proposal would not harm the visual amenities or character of the area. It would therefore be compatible Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/18/3195948 4 with its surroundings in accord with Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy (CS), adopted in 2014. I am also satisfied that there would be no harm to highway safety. There would therefore be no conflict with CS Policy KS11 in relation to this matter. In the absence of any other adverse impacts or conflict with other policies of the development plan the proposal is supported by CS Policy KS1, which takes a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. 15. Accordingly, in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR