Two storey side and rear extension to the existing dwelling

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 22 April 2021 by Rachel Hall BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/W1850/D/21/3269103 2 Eureka Villas, Barons Cross Road, Leominster HR6 8RP • 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 Ben Chambers against the decision of Herefordshire Council. • The application Ref 203646, dated 22 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 13 January 2021. • The development proposed is a two storey side and rear extension to the existing dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • whether or not it has been demonstrated that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on highway safety; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing building; and • whether or not the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for the occupants of 1 Eureka Villas, with particular reference to outlook, daylight and sunlight. Reasons Highway safety 3. Access to the appeal property is from Barons Cross Road (the A44). The entrance is close to a roundabout that provides access to a supermarket and an adjacent petrol station. At the time of my late-morning weekday site visit there was a steady flow of traffic on Barons Cross Road, consistent with its role as an arterial route through Leominster. 4. The proposed extension would occupy part of the land adjacent to the house that is currently available for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. As a result, it appears that vehicles entering the appeal site would no longer have sufficient manoeuvring space to be able to turn and exit the site in a forward gear. No evidence has been provided to the contrary. 5. The appellant has expressed their willingness to remove the existing garage to create space for turning of vehicles to address this point. Whilst this may resolve the issue, I do not have robust evidence to confirm this, nor plans of Appeal Decision APP/W1850/D/21/3269103 2 the scheme in that regard. In any event, demolition of the garage does not form part of the appeal proposal before me. 6. Given the strategic nature of Barons Cross Road and the proximity of the appeal site to a roundabout, there is a risk to highway safety from vehicles reversing out of the appeal property and onto a main road (or impeding traffic as a result, or reversing in). This would be at a point where drivers already on the road would either be just exiting the roundabout, or preparing to navigate the roundabout. For vehicles approaching the roundabout from the supermarket site, visibility towards the appeal site when turning left onto Barons Cross Road is also somewhat limited by virtue of vegetation and planting flanking the pavement there. 7. Concluding on this matter, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on highway safety. Accordingly I find conflict with policy MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy (adopted October 2015) and policy LANP15 of the Leominster Area Neighbourhood Plan January 2019, which require proposals to ensure developments provide appropriate and safe vehicular access. 8. Similarly, for the above reasons, the proposal does not accord with paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to ensure that proposals provide safe and suitable access and, conversely, avoid unacceptable impacts on highway safety. Character and appearance 9. The character of the appeal property, together with the adjoining house at 1 Eureka Villas, is derived from its simple form, comprising a two-storey Victorian villa style house, together with its use of traditional materials, including smooth red brick and grey slate roof. The front elevation is distinctive with detailing in a contrasting pale coloured brick (including at window arches, courses at first floor and eaves level and at quoins). 10. The proposed side extension to the house would be slightly stepped back from the existing front elevation, with a slightly lower ridge line. This means that the existing building’s front façade would not be directly altered by the development and the proposal would feel subservient to the original house. As such, the simplicity of the original building, which is a key feature of its character and appearance, would be retained. The proposed continuation of the contrasting brick course at first floor level on the front façade and use of materials to match existing would help to integrate the extension with the existing building and would not detract from its character and appearance. 11. The scale of the development overall would sit comfortably within the site without feeling cramped, or incongruous with reference to the prevailing relationship of buildings to their plots within the surrounding area. The depth of the extension would be similar to the depth of the existing conservatory. Although it would be wider than the conservatory and two storeys in height, it would not extend back as far as the neighbouring single storey extension at 1 Eureka Villas and would not feel excessively large. The appeal site sits within a sizeable garden, meaning the main area of rear garden would be unaltered by the scale of the development. Consequently, whilst substantial, the proposal would not feel disproportionately large or out of scale with the existing building or its garden. Appeal Decision APP/W1850/D/21/3269103 3 12. I acknowledge that there are some differences in the scale of the fenestration proposed, most notably in respect of the side and rear elevations, and also that the first floor bathroom window would be modest. However, given the original front façade would be unaltered and the proposed front extension would be stepped back, I am not of the view that any harm would result from the window style on the front elevation. The side elevation contributes considerably less to local distinctiveness, being much less visible from the road. To the rear, windows would be viewed in the context of a modern extension and would not harm local distinctiveness or the character and appearance of the original building. 13. Concluding on this matter, the development would not harm the character and appearance of the existing building. I therefore find no conflict with respect to policy SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and policy LANP15 of the Leominster Area Neighbourhood Plan, which seek to ensure development proposals are designed to maintain local distinctiveness and respect factors such as the scale, height and massing of surrounding development. Living conditions 14. The proposed development would be adjacent but not adjoining the single storey extension at 1 Eureka Villas, which is stepped back from the boundary with the appeal site. The single storey extension extends further than the proposed appeal extension, has no windows on the side facing the appeal site, and a solid, windowless roof. There is no evidence before me that it is anything other than authorised. Consequently, the proposed development would not impact on outlook from the single storey extension, nor would it impact on the daylight or sunlight experienced within the extension. 15. At 1 Eureka Villas I observed two rear facing windows at first floor level. The larger, obscure glazed window, closest to the appeal site, is labelled on an appeal plan (Ref 1410-06) as a bathroom. Given the use of this room and its obscure glazing, the proposed development, whilst closest to this window, would not change the outlook, daylight or sunlight in this room to an unacceptable degree. 16. The other window at first floor level, furthest from the appeal property and smaller in size, is labelled as a habitable room on the same appeal plan. Given the smaller size of this window, and its distance from the proposed extension, it is clear that the proposed development is sufficiently far from the neighbour’s habitable room to avoid an unacceptable change to its outlook or daylight. Whilst there would inevitably be some additional shading of 1 Eureka Villas later in the day due to the rear of the properties being orientated towards the north, the depth of the extension proposed is not so excessive as to cause an unacceptable reduction in daylight or sunlight to the occupants of this neighbouring house. I therefore find no harm to the living conditions of residents of 1 Eureka Villas with respect to outlook, daylight and sunlight. 17. Accordingly, in that regard the proposed development accords with Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy policy SD1 and Leominster Area Neighbourhood Plan policy LANP15 which, amongst other things, aim to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents. For the above reasons, the development accords with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which provides guidance on achieving good design. Appeal Decision APP/W1850/D/21/3269103 4 Conclusion 18. I have not found that unacceptable harm would result in terms of the character and appearance of the building or to the living conditions of the occupants of 1 Eureka Villas. However that the proposal would be acceptable in those respects does not outweigh the potential implications of the scheme in terms of highway safety, in respect of which there is a lack of robust evidence before me. As such, and having regard to the development plan as a whole along with all other relevant material considerations, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Rachel Hall INSPECTOR