Side and front extension to form garage and sitting room

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 4 May 2021 by G Sibley MPLAN MRTPI Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/K3415/D/21/3269112 51 Micklehome Drive, Alrewas, Burton-on-Trent DE13 7AU • 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 Andrew Hough against the decision of Lichfield District Council. • The application Ref 20/01517/FUH, dated 20 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 21 December 2020. • The development proposed is side and front extension to form garage and sitting room. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the side extension. 2. The appeal is allowed in part and planning permission is granted for front extension to form sitting room at 51 Micklehome Drive, Alrewas, Burton-on- Trent DE13 7AU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 20/01517/FUH, dated 20 October 2020, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Location Plan; Site Plan; and Proposed extensions at No 51 Micklehome Drive, Alrewas, Staffs DWG No AH/2 only insofar as it relates to the extension to the front of the property and not the side extension which does not form part of the approved development. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those on the host dwelling. Appeal Procedure 3. 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. Main Issue 4. The effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The street scene is characterised by detached and semi-detached dwellings set back behind front gardens and driveways. Around junctions and on corner plots, dwellings are typically set back which allows for areas of low-level Appeal Decision APP/K3415/D/21/3269112 2 fencing and planting. The street scene has a relatively formal arrangement with a moderate density of housing. The dwellings along Micklehome Drive are similarly designed and follow a consistent pattern of semi-detached development. Whilst some dwellings have been extended the scale of those extensions retains the uniformity of the development within the street. The layout of the estate with the corners left open appears to be deliberate and there is a clear distinction between the built form, the open frontages and side gardens, and the public realm. This consistent rhythm in the street pattern contributes to a spacious and attractive street scene. No 51 is typical of the area with an open driveway situated where the side extension is proposed. To the rear of this driveway are the front gardens for the dwellings to the rear and the flank wall of No 51 is built in line with the front elevation of these dwellings. 6. Because both No 51 and the adjoining property have been extended the dwellings maintain a balance across the two properties, despite slight differences in design. The proposed extension would more than double the width of the original dwelling and, when combined with the existing extension, would be a disproportionate addition to the host dwelling. As a result, the proposed side extension would create a disproportionately large semi-detached dwelling which would unbalance the existing pair. This would detract from the consistent appearance of the semi-detached dwellings along this section of Micklehome Drive. Furthermore, whilst Micklehome Drive to the north is a one- way road, the dwelling is in a prominent location on a junction and vehicular users would drive towards the site and would view the unbalanced semi- detached pair in this prominent location. This would further emphasise the discordant appearance of the proposed side extension. 7. The proposed single storey side extension would bring the flank wall of the dwelling close to the side of the footpath, significantly further forward than the front elevations of the buildings to the rear. Given the dwelling’s location on a junction the proposed side extension would be prominent within the street scene and would introduce built form into the open corner of the plot. The proposal would also introduce a blank brick-built flank wall close to the roadside which would appear dominant within the street, despite only being single storey. As such, the proposal would significantly diminish the open character at the junction, which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the street scene. 8. The proposed extension to the front of the dwelling would be a relatively minor addition to the dwelling. Whilst it would bring the ground floor front elevation slightly forward of the host dwelling, it would be relatively shallow and would not extend further than the existing canopy. As a result, it would not detract from the overall appearance of the host dwelling or the connecting dwelling. 9. In this case it seems to me from the plans that the single storey extension to the front of the dwelling would be capable of being constructed independently of the proposed side extension. As such, it would be appropriate in these circumstances to issue a split decision. 10. Therefore, the proposed side extension would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Consequently, the proposal insofar as it relates to the proposed side extension would not comply with Core Policy 3 of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy 2008 – 2029 (LP) Appeal Decision APP/K3415/D/21/3269112 3 (adopted 2015) which requires development to protect and enhance the character and distinctiveness of Lichfield District and its settlements. The proposed side extension would also be contrary to Policy BE1 of the LP insofar as it states that extensions and alterations should carefully respect the character of the surrounding area and development. Furthermore, the proposed side extension would be contrary to the Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2015) which notes that design must integrate into its context and surroundings. Finally, the proposed side extension would be contrary to paragraph 127 (a) of the National Planning Police Framework (The Framework) which expects development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area. 11. The appeal insofar as it relates to the proposed front extension would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the street scene. Accordingly, it would comply with the Core Policy 3 of the LP as well as BE1 of the LP as well as the SPD and the Framework. Conditions 12. Further to the statutory commencement condition, in the interest of certainty and the character and appearance of the area it is also necessary to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the approved plans and the materials to match those on the existing dwelling. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. There are no material considerations that indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the front extension and should be dismissed insofar as it relates to the side extension. G Sibley APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and, on that basis, I agree with the recommendation and shall allow the appeal insofar as it relates to the front extension and dismiss the appeal insofar as it relates to the side extension. L McKay INSPECTOR