Single storey and double storey extension to the front of the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 May 2021 by C McDonagh BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/P1045/D/21/3270524 40 Prospect Drive, Matlock DE4 3TA • 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 D Maskrey against the decision of Derbyshire Dales District Council. • The application Ref 20/01227/FUL, dated 1 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 25 January 2021. • The development proposed is a single storey and double storey extension to the front of the property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with a canopy above the front door. Houses on this side of the street follow a reasonably consistent building line and there are few alterations to front elevations. The most notable alterations include a two-storey front projection at 20 Prospect Drive and a full width single-storey extension at 34 Prospect Drive. 4. The proposal seeks to erect a part single storey and part two-storey front extension. However, the reason for refusal of the application relates to the two- storey element of the proposal. Furthermore, no harm has been identified in respect of the single storey element. Given the other single storey projections in the area, I consider that this aspect does not raise any significant planning concerns. 5. Due to the height of the two-storey section, the proposal would add significant bulk and mass to the front elevation which is highly visible from the street. Whilst there is a minimal set-back of the host property from others, the extension would appear incongruous with the prevailing character of the street scene given there are generally few alterations to front elevations aside from canopies over front doors. Accordingly, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the local area. Appeal Decision APP/P1045/D/21/3270524 2 6. I have been provided with images of other developments elsewhere in the street, which I understand were used in the design process of the proposal before me. However, from my observations on the site visit the extension of No.20 is comprised of a two-storey element, while No.34 is the full width of that dwelling but to single-storey height. Moreover, there are larger gaps between the pairs of properties in this part of the street and as such it has a more spacious feel than the vicinity of the appeal site where the road ends and houses are closer together. Therefore, I consider that neither of these examples are comparable to the proposal before me, nor does their existence justify allowing the harm I have identified. 7. To conclude, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the local area contrary to Policies PD1 and HC10 of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan (2017) which among other matters seek to ensure ‘design quality’ is reflected in the development through a clear understanding of site context and that the height, scale, form and design of the extension is in keeping with the scale and character of the original dwelling and the site’s wider setting and location. Other Matters 8. The appellant has provided details of a potential fallback position whereby it is indicated an additional storey could be added to the property using permitted development rights. It is suggested this would be more harmful than the proposal in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area. I have been provided with a plan to demonstrate this in the context of the immediate row of houses. However, this permitted development proposal is subject to a prior approval process for which it is unclear whether such a proposal would be granted. Furthermore, such a development would be likely to provide an alternative type of accommodation to that desired by the Appellant. Taking these factors into account, I can only give this limited positive weight in my decision. 9. In addition to the above, I have also taken into account the support from the ward Councillor and that discussion took place with the occupiers of neighbouring properties. However, I consider that the potential fallback position and the support for the proposal does not outweigh the harm I have found. Conclusion 10. I have found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such it would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. C McDonagh INSPECTOR