Two storey side and rear extension and single storey front extension

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 June 2018 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/K2420/D/18/3198253 6 Leysmill Close, Hinckley LE10 0RU  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 Neale against the decision of Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00054/HOU, dated 16 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 15 March 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey side and rear extension and single storey front extension. Procedural Matter 1. I have taken the description of the proposal from the Council’s Decision Notice rather than the Application Form as it more accurately describes the scheme. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene, along with its effect on the occupiers of No. 5 Leysmill Close with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal relates to a semi-detached dwelling which sits within a modern housing estate. The proposal includes a two storey extension to the side and rear which would ‘wrap around’ the host dwelling and a single storey rear section which would span the width of the original house and the side extension. 5. The two storey element of the proposal would be large when compared to the scale and proportioning of the host dwelling. Its ridge would be only slightly lower and the setback from the front elevation would be so marginal as not to be discernible. Combined with the considerable depth of the two storey element of the scheme and the fact that it would wrap around the full width of Appeal Decision APP/K2420/D/18/3198253 2 the rear of the dwelling, the effect would see the extension dominate rather than appear submissive. It would not respond well to the scale and proportions of the host dwelling and its dominating effect would imbalance the relationship with the attached dwelling; which is of the same design and scale. This visual harm would be readily visible within the street where the general balance of well proportioned dwellings is noticeable and makes a positive contribution to the overall character and appearance of the locality. 6. For these reasons, I conclude that the overall scale and massing of the proposed extension would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. In this respect, it conflicts with policy DM10 of the Council’s adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) which seeks, amongst other matters, to ensure that development complements or enhances the character of the surrounding area with regards to scale, layout, mass and design etc. Living conditions 7. The appeal dwelling is set well back from No. 5 Leysmill Close to the point that its front elevation is almost in line with the rear elevation of this neighbouring dwelling. The main body of the proposed two storey side extension would run along the shared boundary. Although the two storey element would be set in from the boundary towards the rear, the large two storey blank elevation of the extension and a large expanse of brickwork would dominate the view from the nearest rooms at the rear of No. 5 and from the patio area of its garden. Whilst this would not cause a significant impact in terms of access to natural light given the southerly aspect, the result would be overbearing and oppressive. It would unacceptably compromise the outlook for its occupiers. 8. I therefore conclude that the proposed two storey element of the extension would unduly harm the outlook for the occupiers of No. 5 Leysmill Close. In this regard, the proposal conflicts with policy DM10 of the DPD which also seeks to protect the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring buildings. Other matters 9. The appellant argues that the proposed extension is required to accommodate his growing family and an extension of a reduced scale would not provide adequately sized bedrooms. Whilst I sympathise, this argument does not outweigh the harm I have identified. Overall Conclusions 10. I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene and it would also compromise the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 5 Leysmill Close, contrary to the development plan policy outlined above. The arguments advanced in favour of the proposal do not outweigh this harm and policy conflict, therefore the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR