Two storey side extension with extension of balcony plus a loft conversion and changes to carport

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 April 2021 by M Long Decision by K Taylor BSc (Hons) PGDip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/Z1775/D/21/3268983 52 Coverack Way, Portsmouth PO6 4SX • 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 Lee Steane against the decision of Portsmouth City Council. • The application Ref 20/00535/HOU, dated 20 May 2020, was refused by notice dated 18 December 2020. • The development proposed was described on the application form as a two storey side extension with extension of balcony plus a loft conversion and changes to carport. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Procedural Matters 3. The appellant has requested that a different description of development is used at the appeal stage. I have taken the description of the proposal that was used in the original application form; however, the suggested description will be taken into consideration. The Council has only raised substantive concerns with the two storey side extension and so the following recommendation will focus solely on this part of the proposed development. 4. It is apparent there is an error on drawing no PG.5000.20.3 which shows proposed section drawings of the appeal property. This document is not essential in determining the appeal and will be excluded from further consideration. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed two storey side extension on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal site is located on the end of a four dwelling terrace situated in a residential cul-de-sac. The appeal property and no 46 are both two storey dwellings with front facing roof slopes that flank a central pair of three storey townhouses incorporated into a gable frontage. The balanced design of the terrace creates a distinctive sense of symmetry that is also characteristic of a neighbouring four dwelling terrace of similar appearance. In the surrounding area there is a larger terraced development that further reflects the pattern Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/D/21/3268983 2 between two and three storey houses. The terraced properties along this cul- de-sac are largely unvaried in design, width and external material finishes. 7. The proposed two storey side extension would maintain the depth, roof height and side gable profile of the host dwelling as well as incorporate a balcony extension and alterations to the building’s fenestration. The extension would be prominent both along Coverack Way’s streetscene and when viewed from across the marina. 8. The proposed extension would substantially increase the width of the appeal property resulting in the wider terrace appearing unduly asymmetrical and unbalanced. The size of the extended property would be discordant to its two storey counterpart, no 46, located on the other end of the terrace. Moreover, its width would be out of keeping with the other two storey dwellings in the surrounding vicinity. 9. It is understood that the design approach was not to construct an extension subservient to the appeal property but rather maintain the building’s original form, albeit with a wider footprint, which itself is subservient to the terrace’s central three storey townhouses. While the proposed extension would maintain the distinction between the two and three storey dwellings, it would still appear as an incongruous addition to the terrace due to its unbalancing effect. It would disrupt the established patterns of housing widths and fenestration that are distinctive to the area and it is therefore considered harmful to local character and appearance. 10. It is acknowledged that the dormer installed in the roof slope of neighbouring no 50 has somewhat reduced the level of symmetry attributed to the wider terrace. However, the effect of this dormer is not considered harmful due to its modest size and positioning above ground level. In contrast, the effect of the proposed extension would be unacceptably harmful due to its larger size, scale and visual prominence in the streetscene. 11. Although Tintagel Way and Bryher Island reflect the alternating two and three storey housing that is characteristic of the appeal site, I noted a discernible difference in the general character and appearance of these areas. Therefore, I do not consider these sites to be sufficiently comparable to the appeal scheme in question. 12. Given the above, the proposed extension would result in unacceptable harm to local character and appearance. It would conflict with Policy PCS23 of The Portsmouth Plan (Portsmouth’s Core Strategy) adopted January 2012 which seeks to ensure development is well-designed and appropriate in scale and appearance. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to prevent development of poor design that fails to improve the character and quality of the local area. Although the Council does not appear to have adopted a supplementary planning document, or other document setting out design principles, for the above reasons, there would be conflict with development plan policy. Other Matters 13. An issue regarding alterations to a car port was raised. However, this matter was not an issue in the Council’s reason for refusal and so it is not considered to be of central concern to this recommendation. Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/D/21/3268983 3 Conclusion and Recommendation 14. The proposed development would not accord with the development plan, when considered as a whole. Based on the above, and having regard to all matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. M Long APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. K Taylor INSPECTOR