Erection of a single storey front and two storey side/rear extension incorporating the conversion of existing garage to habitable accommodation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 May 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29th May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C3620/D/18/3196186 3 Miena Way, Ashtead, KT21 2HU  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 Guy & Clarissa Bailey against the decision of Mole Valley District Council.  The application Ref MO/2017/1908/PLAH, dated 24 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 December 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a single storey front and two storey side/rear extension incorporating the conversion of existing garage to habitable accommodation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. I use the Council’s description of development which is more precise than the application forms; I note the Appellants also use this on the appeal form. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is a two storey detached house with attached single storey garage to the side located within a distinctive and attractive backland development of houses and bungalows dating from the mid 1980s. The property is located at the eastern end of the road and is accessed via a private drive. The road is of established character with similar two storey detached dwellings and detached bungalows all set in a way which gives a sense of spaciousness and aesthetic quality. The proposal is as described above would primarily provide for increased living space and bedroom accommodation. 5. A defining and noticeable characteristic of the layout of the Miena Way development pattern is that two storey elements do not run up to side boundaries; there are gaps or single storey parts of a property only. The proposal seeks to break this mould and to my mind this would be unfortunate and quite clearly represent a form of development which would be at odds with the prevailing character of layout and appear cramped in otherwise quite Appeal Decision APP/C3620/D/18/3196186 2 spacious environs. Notwithstanding that the view of the development would not be apparent from the whole street, because of the set back of the appeal property and the planned extension itself, it would still be visible from a sufficient length of frontage such as to cause marked visual harm and be notably out sync with the current pattern and spaciousness of the road. 6. Taken together, Policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy and Saved Policies ENV22 and ENV32 of the Mole Valley Local Plan call for, amongst other matters, high quality designs for extensions sympathetic to, and in scale with, the character of a building’s setting and also protective of the local streetscene. I conclude that the appeal scheme would run contrary to these policies. Other matters 7. I do understand the wish for additional accommodation with an expanding family and hope that a suitable solution can be found in this regard. I can see that thought has been given to the selection of materials and the appearance of the planned elevations and roof albeit I disagree with the suitability of an extension of this scale in this position. I noted the garage position on the boundary and the separation dimensions at my site visit and appreciate the points raised by the Appellants relating to the Council’s inaccurate report on this matter although this does not lead me to conclude that the scheme would be acceptable. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above. 8. I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered; the Council’s policies which I cite mirror relevant objectives within the Framework. Overall conclusion 9. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the locality. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR