For a single storey front extension and new pitched roof to existing rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 June 2018 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q3820/D/18/3200027 24 Forester Road, South Gate, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 6EG.  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 and Mrs Gray against the decision of Crawley Borough Council  The application Ref CR/2017/0917/FUL, dated 10 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 24 January 2018.  The development proposed is for a single storey front extension and new pitched roof to existing rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed in so far as it relates to the single storey front extension. 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new pitched roof to existing rear extension at 24 Forester Road, South Gate, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 6EG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref CR/2017/0917/FUL, dated 10 October 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings: 3664/01, 3664/E/02, 1:500 scale Block Plan and the ordnance survey location plan date stamped 31 October 2017. Main Issue 3. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host building, the adjoining terrace and thereby the character and appearance of the wider street scene of Forester Road. Reasons 4. The appeal property, 24 Forester Road, is the end property in a terrace of six two-storey houses. Due to the staggered design, the terrace has the appearance of three pairs of attached semi-detached units. The terrace dates Appeal Decision APP/Q3820/D/18/3200027 2 from the mid-1950’s and is a relatively unaltered example of New Town residential architecture of the period. It is located just to the west of but not adjoining the Southgate Neighbourhood Conservation Area. 5. Although there have been alterations to the fenestration of the properties, generally the street elevations have remained as originally designed. Those alterations that have been undertaken have in the main been modest and, while not necessarily in keeping with the original design, have not significantly disrupted the generally consistent appearance of the terrace and thereby the street scene. One constant element of the original design is that the front doors to the dwellings are arranged in pairs with shallow pitched roof canopies over. Although some have been replaced, the majority of the original canopies have nevertheless been retained. 6. In addition to the replacement of the roof to the rear extension with a new lean-to roof, the appellants propose a single storey full width addition to the front of the house to provide an extension to the kitchen, ground floor cloakroom and enclosed porch. The extension, which it is proposed would be built using matching materials, would have a simple lean-to roof with a roof window over the kitchen extension. 7. The Council found the proposed replacement roof to the rear addition acceptable. From what I have seen and read I would not form a contrary view. 8. In itself the proposed front extension would appear to be of a well mannered design. However, due to the size and form of the proposed addition it would, in this context, cause harm to the architectural integrity of not only the host dwelling but also the terrace as a whole. 9. Further, as well as unbalancing the composition of the design of the terrace, the extension would be particularly prominent in the street scene due to the host property being at the end of the terrace. 10. The appellants have drawn my attention to a number of similar front projections in the area. In the two cases illustrated it would appear that the front projections were, at least in part, an integral part of the original design. Nevertheless, whatever the background, their existence is not an appropriate justification for permitting the proposed development here, which I have considered on its individual merits. 11. I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that the replacement of the roof to the rear extension would be acceptable. However, for the foregoing reasons I consider that the proposed front extension would result in an incongruous form of development. Thus the proposal would fail to respect the character, design and appearance of the existing dwelling and would cause harm to the appearance of the adjoining terrace and wider street scene of Forester Road. It would therefore not accord with Policies CH2 and CH3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030 (Adopted December 2015), the guidance set out in the Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (October 2016) and the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to, amongst other things, the quality of development and the need for new development to respond to and reinforce locally distinctive patterns of development. Appeal Decision APP/Q3820/D/18/3200027 3 12. Given the property’s relationship to the conservation area, I agree with the Council’s view that the proposed development, despite my findings on the front extension’s impact on the host property, the terrace and street scene, would nevertheless preserve the character and appearance of the Southgate Neighbourhood Conservation Area to the west. Conditions 13. The conditions follow from those suggested by the Council. To ensure a high quality development, I shall include a condition about the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the replacement roof to the rear extension. In the interests of certainty, I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. Conclusions 14. I consider that the two parts of the proposal are clearly severable, being physically and functionally independent and a split decision is, therefore, appropriate. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed as far as it relates to the single storey front extension, but allowed in so far as it relates to the new pitched roof to existing rear extension. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR