2 storey rear extension to existing dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 March 2021 by Helen O'Connor LLB MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 March 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/B1740/D/21/3267599 55 North Street, Pennington, Lymington SO41 8GB • 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 Ms Charlotte Phillips against the decision of New Forest District Council. • The application Ref 20/11027, dated 21 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 21 December 2020. • The development proposed is a 2 storey rear extension to existing dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a 2 storey rear extension to existing dwelling at 55 North Street, Pennington, Lymington SO41 8GB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/11027, dated 21 September 2020, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Procedural Matters 2. The appellants have included an updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal report1 as part of their appeal submission. It updates the report dated October 2018 which accompanied the planning application. The Council had reservations regarding the age of the original report at the time of the planning application and the update reflects good practice. No fundamentally new issues are raised by the update. Hence, I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my taking the updated report into account as part of my determination. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. North Street is primarily a residential area which contains a notable number of mostly detached vernacular dwellings. There is some variety in the arrangement of dwellings either facing front, or gable end-on with some close to the street with other set further back. Nevertheless, the combination of dwellings close to the road, front boundary treatments, established planting and the narrowness of North Street gives a sense of containment to the street. The buildings also display a range of materials, although red brick and slate are 1 Prepared by Ecosupport dated 19 January 2021 Appeal Decision APP/B1740/D/21/3267599 2 most prevalent. Overall, this results in an interesting and distinctive street scene. 5. 55 North Street is a modest detached traditional dwelling set slightly back from, and facing, the street behind a low wall. It has a broadly symmetrical red brick front elevation and a shallow pitched slate roof that reflects the limited depth of the main part of the dwelling. Several alterations and extensions have taken place to the rear. The map for Character Area 8, Pennington Village contained in the Lymington Local Distinctiveness Supplementary Planning Document, February 2011 (SPD) labels the building, along with 53 North Street as ‘Important buildings or groups and street frontages’. 57 North Street on the other side is noted as a key building in the SPD. Within this close-knit grouping, it is the attractive traditional front elevation of No.55 that primarily makes a positive contribution to the distinctive character and appearance of the street scene. 6. Notwithstanding the analysis in the SPD, neither party suggest that the appeal building constitutes a non-designated heritage asset and it is not otherwise formally designated. I have no reason to find otherwise and my approach in this regard is consistent with that of the Inspector in a recent appeal decision2 concerning a replacement dwelling at the site. 7. Most of the proposed extension would be a two storey pitched roof projection from the rear at a width broadly equivalent to that of the original dwelling. It would terminate with a smaller single storey flat roofed section featuring a roof lantern. The parties disagree as to the impact of the extension on the character and appearance of No.55 and the wider street scene. 8. Although the proposal would add considerable volume to the host dwelling, its visual impact would be limited due to its unobtrusive siting to the rear of the property. The additional mass would be generally contained between the existing larger buildings either side. In turn this would retain a generous amount of garden land within the plot. This would accord with the SPD guidance3 which advises that extensions should allow the mass to remain proportionate to the amount of land available for the setting. 9. Furthermore, the impact of the proposal would be significantly tempered by the close-knit arrangement of the properties flanking No.55. Their siting closer to the street and proximity either side of the dwelling would considerably foreshorten and obstruct views to the sides and rear of the appeal building. This is illustrated in the medium and long distance view photographs provided in the appellant’s grounds of appeal. 10. Consequently, only limited glimpses of the proposal would be possible from the road, and these would be read as part of a group of buildings, with the principal elevation of No.55 in the foreground. On this basis, the proposal would conserve the important qualities of the principal, and most public elevation which makes most contribution to the street scene. As such, despite its size, the proposal would not dominate the important characteristics of the dwelling. This would broadly accord with the advice in the SPD4 that alterations 2 Appeal Reference APP/B1740/W/19/3221898 3 Page 125 – Scale - proportion 4 Page 25 Appeal Decision APP/B1740/D/21/3267599 3 should not reduce the architectural or historical integrity of locally significant buildings or erode their contribution to the character of the area. 11. In addition, the proposed elevations show cladding on the upper part of the extension and the Council states in its delegated report that natural cladding would be acceptable in this location. This would give a muted finish unlikely to draw the eye. Furthermore, the contemporary appearance of the single storey element would provide a definite contrast. These factors would assist in ensuring that the older, and more prominent part of the dwelling would remain clearly discernible. The proposal would also replace existing rear extensions and outbuildings5 of a non-descript appearance thereby improving the coherence and appearance of the built form overall. 12. It is highlighted that the SPD refers to North Street as containing traditional rural cottages that have retained their forms, footprints and traditional materials. However, this descriptive part of the SPD6 does not suggest that alterations and extensions cannot be made, and it goes on to set out guidance in order to inform decision making. As mentioned above, I have taken account of the SPD advice in my determination. 13. The Council are concerned that the angle of the rear projection would appear contrived. However, the plans7 provided show that this would continue the angle established by the existing rear extension as some of the existing wall would be incorporated into the proposal. Moreover, the angle is only slight and for the reasons already outlined, would not be readily apparent. Accordingly, this would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling or wider area. 14. Therefore, the proposal would conserve the important qualities of the host building. Although of a considerable size, it would not be unduly prominent nor dominate the host dwelling and would have a negligible impact on the attractiveness of the street scene. It follows that it would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Additionally, it would accord with paragraph 127 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which stipulates that planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change. 15. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would comply with policy ENV3 of the New Forest District Local Plan, 2016-2036, Part 1: Planning Strategy, July 2020 which, amongst other things, requires all development to achieve high quality design that is sympathetic to its environment and context, respecting and enhancing local distinctiveness, character and identity. Conditions 16. The three year period in which the planning permission may be implemented is a statutory requirement. I also consider that it is necessary to specify the plans that are approved and that the development shall be undertaken in accordance with these, as this provides certainty. 5 Photographs Figure 4 and Figure 6 in Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Ecosupport dated 19 January 2021 6 Paragraph 4.8.4 7 Existing Floorplans, drawing no. LYMNS PA001 & Proposed Floorplans, drawing no. LYMNS PA004 Appeal Decision APP/B1740/D/21/3267599 4 17. Although reference is made to the use of contrasting materials in the extension, the description of materials is generic and flexible. Therefore, to ensure the use of natural cladding and in the interests of the overall quality of the design, a condition requiring that the details of the external materials to be agreed with the local planning authority is necessary. 18. The submitted ecological information in relation to bats, reptiles, badgers, nesting birds, hedgehogs and existing shrubs and trees included mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures. Accordingly, the scheme must proceed in accordance with those measures to adequately safeguard and enhance biodiversity, including protected species. A condition is imposed to ensure this. 19. The proposal would introduce two first floor windows in the south east elevation of the extension that would face towards 53 North Street close to the side boundary. These would serve a bathroom and en-suite bathroom and are likely to be obscure glazed. I have considered whether a condition to secure this would be necessary to ensure the privacy of the adjacent residents. However, the alignment of the windows relative to the built form and windows of No.53 would only allow limited outlooks that would not unacceptably compromise the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants. Therefore, such a condition would be unnecessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and paragraph 55 of the Framework stipulates that in these circumstances, a planning condition should not be imposed. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Helen O’Connor Inspector Appeal Decision APP/B1740/D/21/3267599 5 Schedule of 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: Extg Block & Location Plans, drawing number LYMNS PA008; Block & Location Plans, drawing number LYMNS PA007; Proposed Elevations, drawing number LYMNS PA006; Proposed Elevations, drawing number LYMNS PA005; and Proposed Floorplans, drawing number LYMNS PA004. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in materials the details of which shall have previously been agreed in writing with the local planning authority. 4) The development shall proceed in accordance with the Mitigation, Recommendations and Compensation measures detailed in section 6.0 (including Enhancement measures listed in section 6.7) of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal prepared by Ecosupport dated 19 January 2021.