Single-storey and two-storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 May 2018 by G J Fort BA PGDip LLM MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q1445/D/18/3196436 46 Hampden Road, Brighton BN2 9TN  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 Nick Adams against the decision of Brighton & Hove City Council.  The application Ref BH2017/03671, dated 25 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 January 2018.  The development proposed is a single-storey and two-storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single-storey and two-storey extension at 46 Hampden Road, Brighton BN2 9TN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref BH2017/03671, dated 25 October 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan- drawing no. 46-10 C; Site Plan- drawing no. 46-11 C; Proposed Plans, Section & Elevations drawing no. 46-23 D. 3) No development shall commence until details 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 details. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of its host terrace. Reasons 3. The appeal dwelling is a mid-terraced property. At the front of the terrace render facing in a variety of colours, and the bay windows add a strong sense of rhythm to the streetscene. The rears of the terrace are a marked contrast to the order of their fronts due to the incremental accretions and alterations present there, with a variety of dormer extensions, including at the appeal property. Furthermore fenestration is considerably less ordered than the Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/D/18/3196436 2 street-facing elevations. However, roughly half-width two-storey outriggers do impart a sense of rhythm to the rears, although I saw that the detailing of these, including the roof treatment and fenestration, is far from consistent. 4. The appeal scheme would introduce an extension to the rear of the property, part single-storey at lower ground floor level, with a two-storey element sandwiched between the outriggers of the host dwelling and the adjoining property. This two-storey element would be set back considerably from the rear building lines of the adjoining outriggers, and its flat-roof would be set down from the rooflines to which it would be attached. A glazed roof light element would be located at the junction between the proposed two-storey extension and the rear wall of the appeal property. 5. An extant planning permission1 concerning the property approved the single- storey element of the proposed development. I have no reason to reach differing conclusions to those of the Council in respect of the acceptability in planning terms of this single-storey element, and consequently, I have focussed on the two-storey element of the proposal in my consideration of its merits. 6. The lower height of the proposed extension’s roofline compared to the eaves and ridge lines of the outriggers to which it would be attached, taken together with its considerable recess from the outrigger’s rear building lines would impart a subservient appearance to the appeal scheme. Consequently, the outriggers would remain the most visually prominent elements of the rear aspects of the host building and its adjoining property, and as a result their sense of rhythm would not be undermined. Neither, given its sensitive siting would the proposed development’s flat roof appear incongruous. 7. I readily accept that the proposed development would obscure the rear wall of the appeal building- nevertheless, given the varied pattern of fenestration within these rear elevations across the terrace, this would not read as an incongruous or discordant alteration within an otherwise harmonious development pattern. Neither given the clearly differing characters of the extension and the host dwelling would the proposed development erode the appeal property’s plan form to a harmful degree. Moreover, I consider that the attachment of a condition could ensure that materials used in the appeal property’s facing would not only aid its legibility as a subsequent alteration, but also help it to assimilate with the wider character and appearance of the terrace. 8. The proposed roof lights at the junction with the rear wall of the property would be lightweight in appearance, and limited in scale and area. These glazed elements would also assimilate readily with the extensive glazing at high levels employed both in the appeal dwelling’s dormer, and those in adjacent properties. As a result, they do not appear as a dominant or uncomfortable element adjacent to the host property’s roof-scape. 9. Taken together these considerations lead me to the view that the proposed development would not constitute harmful overdevelopment of the appeal site, and to the conclusion that it would cause no harm to the character and appearance of its host terrace. For these reasons, the proposed development would not conflict with Policy QD14 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 1 Council reference: BH2016/06418 Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/D/18/3196436 3 (adopted July 2005); or Policy CP12 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan-Part One (adopted March 2016). Taken together, and amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that extensions and alterations are well designed, sited and detailed in relation to the property to be extended, adjoining properties and the surrounding area; and that development respects the city’s diverse character and urban grain. Conditions 10. In attaching conditions I am mindful of paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This establishes that conditions should only be attached where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. 11. In the interests of certainty, I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans. As suggested by the appellant, and in response to the Council’s views regarding the potential materials palette of the proposed development, I have attached a condition requiring the approval of materials details prior to commencement. This condition necessarily requires compliance pre-commencement in the interests of the character and appearance of the finished development. Conclusion 12. The proposed extension would not conflict with the development plan insofar as the above-referenced policies are concerned. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. G J Fort INSPECTOR