Two-storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 March 2021 by Patrick Hanna MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 March 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/M2372/D/20/3265881 7 Parklands Way, Blackburn BB2 4QS • 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 and Mrs V and S Morgan against the decision of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council. • The application Ref 10/20/0887, dated 21 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 16 November 2020. • The development proposed is a two-storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal site contains a single-storey detached dwelling on a corner plot, within a group of dwellings of similar height and largely uniform design. At the time of my site visit, a different development to the appeal proposal was under construction. The effect of the appeal proposal would be to require removal of some of those construction works and introduce a two-storey extension in an otherwise single-storey street scene. 4. Two storey properties are located further south on Parkland Way, and on Parkway to the east. However, those dwellings are sufficiently distant that they are not visually associated with the appeal site and represent a change in the character and appearance of the street at those locations. As a consequence, the height and massing of the proposed two storey extension would be in stark contrast with the appeal dwelling grouping. 5. The ground levels rise to the south such that the extension would be no higher than that at No 9 Parkland Way. Nonetheless, the width of the intervening road is such that No 9 is visually separated from the appeal dwelling. Moreover, the existing single-storey roofline profile along the street, which steps up in line with existing ground levels, would be disrupted by the proposed two-storey extension, in terms of both eaves and ridge lines. As such, the proposal would be out of keeping with, and cause harm to, the wider street scene. 6. The appellant argues that the proposal represents a welcome design variation to the street, in effect a new house type. However, the existing character of Appeal Decision APP/M2372/D/20/3265881 2 the street is well established. The purported new house type would be of different design and appearance to any of the dwellings in the surrounding area, whether single or two storeys. The protrusion forward of the dwelling frontage would, as a result of the proposed height and massing, overwhelm the host dwelling. Accordingly, the proposal would have an adverse effect on the host dwelling and appear incongruous in the street scene, notwithstanding the appellant’s intention to use high quality materials and workmanship. 7. It is clearly evident that a second storey of accommodation is being provided, even if it is attic accommodation, despite the appellants assertions that the proposal is not fully two-storey. Indeed, the appellant describes the proposal as two-storey on the application form. Although the proposal may be reduced in size from a previous refused application, I do not have the details of that earlier scheme and, in any case, I must determine the appeal proposal on its own merits. 8. I conclude that the proposed extension would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, contrary to policies 8 and 11 of the Blackburn with Darwen Local Plan Part 2 (2015) and the guidance contained within RES E9 and RES E15 of the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012). Together these require that new development to demonstrate an understanding of the wider context, contribute positively to the physical character of the area, reinforce established heights, and respect existing scale and massing. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Patrick Hanna INSPECTOR