2 storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 May 2018 by Timothy C King BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M1595/D/18/3197230 72 Fullarton Crescent, South Ockendon, Essex RM15 5HW  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 Jason Harding against the decision of Thurrock Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/01639/HHA, dated 22 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 February 2018.  The development proposed is a 2 storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is situated at the corner of Fullarton Crescent and Gatehope Drive. The existing pattern of development, reflected on the opposite side of Gatehope Drive, is that the two-storey flank walls of the Fullarton Crescent dwellings do not breach the front building lines of the respective dwellings beyond on Gatehope Drive. 4. The proposal would involve the erection of a 4m wide two-storey side extension which would pull the side building line of the appeal dwelling forward of No 16 Gatehope Drive. Due to its particular location it is a prominent site but, nonetheless, the angle is such that, when viewed directly from Fullarton Crescent, the visual impression is that the frontage of No 16 appears to sit markedly forward of the existing flank wall. This impression is accentuated by the distance between the dwellings as a consequence of the appeal property’s deep rear garden. 5. At my site visit, when walking around the immediate area, I did not observe any similar end-of-terrace developments on corner plots to that proposed. On this basis, as the proposal is untypical of the prevailing development pattern it would be in conflict with relevant advice set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Residential Alterations & Extensions’ (SPD). The advice goes on to say that two-storey side extensions may be appropriate if they are set back from the side boundary and, if on a corner plot, do not extend further than the building lines. In this particular instance, although the projected flank Appeal Decision APP/M1595/D/18/3197230 2 wall would still be set back from the side boundary, the building line of No 16 would be breached. I did note, though, that further down this street is a staggered such arrangement. The visual impression I have mentioned is also a factor to take into account as this would also reduce any terracing effect which the SPD also seeks to guard against. 6. The Council has raised additional concerns as to the considered impact of the proposal, including the extension’s intended set back from the dwelling’s main frontage, the small gable feature over the new bedroom window and also the blank flank wall. I note that the appellant has taken issue with the Council’s stated measurements on the first point. Whilst the first two features might be uncharacteristic of the immediate area the latter arrangement is not and, besides, none of these would necessarily detract from the streetscene. Instead, I consider that the projected ridgeline at full height would not show subordination to the main dwelling and, without any physical mitigation, the existing openness of this corner space would be unduly affected. 7. The appellant has drawn my attention to individual examples of two storey extensions in the wider, local area and I visited these, accordingly. Situated on Foyle Drive on opposite sides of its junction with Dunkellin Road the extensions at both Nos 108 and 110 Foyle Drive breach the front building lines along the side road. Both extensions are, though, stepped back from their respective side boundaries, both ridgelines are stepped down from the main ridge height and the extensions together provide a certain balance. Further, both were approved a number of years before the adoption of the Council’s Core Strategy (CS) and its SPD. As such, direct parallels to that of the current proposal are limited. 8. In the circumstances I conclude that the physical form and extent of the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to the design objectives of CS Policies PMD2 and CSTP22, and also relevant advice on good design within both the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework. 9. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Timothy C King INSPECTOR