Retrospective application for ground & first storey extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 May 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B1740/D/18/3198197 61 South Street, Hythe, Southampton SO45 6EA  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 Danny Wells against the decision of New Forest District Council.  The application, Ref. 17/11515, dated 30 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 9 January 2018.  The development proposed is a retrospective application for ground & first storey extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the original dwelling and as a consequence whether the character and appearance of the Hythe Conservation Area would be preserved or enhanced. Reasons 3. The officer’s report refers to the Hythe Conservation Area appraisal, which states in relation to the appeal site and its surroundings: ‘The cottages lining the eastern side of South Street are at its upper end, very small and in short terraces’. In the light of this and my inspection of the property and its surroundings, I am satisfied that further extensions over and above those built in the 1950’s would in principle have a propensity to cause harm to the previously modest proportions of the building and thereby the character and appearance of the conservation area. 4. However, although the ground floor extension increases the linearity of the dwelling, it has little if any visual impact given (i) the existing single storey extensions at this end of the terrace, and (ii) the visual dominance of the large rear and flank elements of the adjoining Holly Cottage to the south west. Furthermore, I give weight to the argument in the grounds of appeal that this part of the development or something very similar may well have been constructed as permitted development under the prior approval procedure given the support from neighbours for the appeal application. 5. I take a different view with the first floor extension. This extends the 1950s two storey addition and in my view clearly harms the character and appearance Appeal Decision APP/B1740/D/18/3198197 2 of the original dwelling and the terrace as a whole. As the officer’s report says, it is disproportionate to the original dwelling, and with its size and gabled design is over-dominant in its context. Although the gable does not significantly affect the street scene, the obvious lengthening of the terrace is nonetheless apparent in the views from South Street through the gap between the appeal dwelling and Holly Cottage. 6. As the building and terrace are within the conservation area, it is not just the aspect from the public realm that carries significant weight. Accordingly, I also consider it relevant that the weatherboard cladding exacerbates the harm caused by the design and size of the first floor extension. The grounds of appeal refer to cladding elsewhere in the conservation area, but this does not make it any more appropriate for the appeal building and its context as an end of terrace late 19th century building in a tight knit urban context. 7. Overall, I conclude that although the ground floor addition is not harmful, the first floor extension would not preserve the character and appearance of the host building, the terrace of which it forms part and the conservation area. There would therefore be a conflict with Policies CS2 & CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park 1999 and Policy DM1 of the Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management Development Plan 2004. 8. Section 12: ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 sets out in paragraph 132 Government policy on the effect of development on designated heritage assets, of which the Hythe Conservation Area is an example. In this case I consider that the first floor extension would cause ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of the asset, although this should not be regarded as in any way diminishing the adverse effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the original building and the conservation area. 9. In accordance with paragraph 134 I have weighed the harm caused against the very minor public benefit of the improvement of the housing stock of the area as a result of the first floor addition. However, together with the letters of support from neighbours and the fact that the appellant did not intentionally seek to carry out unauthorised development, this benefit does not alter my finding that the first floor extension is unacceptable for the reasons I have already explained. 10. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR