Single storey rear extension and first floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 June 2018 by H Lock BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A1530/D/18/3200620 4 Rectory Cottages, Brook Road, GREAT TEY, CO6 1JF  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 B Sands against the decision of Colchester Borough Council.  The application Ref. 172862, dated 31 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 January 2018.  The development proposed is single storey rear extension and first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (1) the character and appearance of the appeal property, the terrace of which it forms part, and the Great Tey Conservation Area; and (2) the setting and views of the Church of St Barnabas. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal property is an end-terrace Victorian house located in the Great Tey Conservation Area. Dwellings fronting onto Brook Road vary in terms of design and form, and comprise both modern and more historic buildings. However, within this mixed street scene the appeal property and the terrace of which it forms part appear well-proportioned and balanced, albeit there are single- storey porches and additions to the dwellings in this terrace. The submitted Heritage Statement confirms that the terrace of Rectory Cottages along with the adjacent terrace, New Cottages, are of a positive appearance and contribution to the conservation area character. 4. A previous appeal for a first floor side extension at the appeal property was dismissed in January 2008, under ref. APP/A1530/A/07/20154725. Whilst I note that the proposal has been redesigned from the dismissed scheme to reduce its height and overall bulk, it would nevertheless be a significant addition to the dwelling. I share the view of the previous Inspector that the existing single-storey side extension does not affect the balanced appearance of the terrace’s front elevation. However, I consider that the proposal would create a more dominant and visible addition to the dwelling that would undermine the balance and proportions of the terrace. To a certain extent, the Appeal Decision APP/A1530/D/18/3200620 2 revisions to the dismissed scheme create a less traditional roof profile, and a bulkier blank side elevation. 5. With regard to the front dormer, I note that a similar approach was included in an extension at 1 New Cottages (No.1), on a similarly styled terrace. However, that extension is set much further back on the property and has far less visual impact on the host dwelling and in the street scene. Whereas the original form of the terrace is not undermined by the extension at No.1, the scale and prominence of the appeal proposal would weaken the composition of the Rectory Cottages terrace. 6. There is a requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area in exercising planning functions. I am mindful that the Council’s Conservation Officer did not object to the proposal, and found the proposal to be within the limits of what is acceptable in conservation terms. However, considering this assessment alongside the previous appeal decision, I am not persuaded that a development of the size, form and depth proposed would preserve the character and appearance of the appeal property, the terrace of which it forms part and the Great Tey Conservation Area. Having regard to paragph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), this harm would be less than substantial but would not be outweighed by public benefits. 7. The appellant advises that the proposal would increase usable space to provide better living accommodation for occupants of the property now and in the future, but this would not be a public benefit sufficient to outweigh the harm identified. Although it is stated that a much needed additional bedroom would be created, the submitted plans show that the dwelling would remain three- bedroom, albeit enlarged. 8. Reference is made to advice in the Framework, that planning permission that is sustainable should not be refused because of incompatibility with an existing townscape. However, taking paragraph 65 of that document in its entirety, it states that this approach applies unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits. For the reasons outlined above, it is not evident that benefits of such weight would apply. 9. I therefore conclude that the proposed first floor extension would detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property, the terrace of which it forms part and the Great Tey Conservation Area. It would conflict with the overarching design aims of Policy UR2 of the Core Strategy1, and would not respect and enhance the character of the site, its context and surroundings in matters including its architectural approach, height, size, scale, form, and massing, contrary to the aims of DPD2 Policy DP1; and contrary to DPD Policy DP14 which requires development affecting the historic environment to preserve or enhance the heritage asset. Effect on the Church of St Barnabas 10. The Church of St Barnabas is a Grade I listed building, and it sits within an open churchyard at a prominent point in the conservation area. Despite this 1 Colchester Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy Adopted December 2008 2 Colchester Borough Council Local Development Framework Development Policies Adopted October 2010 Appeal Decision APP/A1530/D/18/3200620 3 openness, the church forms the backdrop to other buildings in the village, and therefore in many views the lower parts of the church are hidden from view by other buildings. 11. In this context, views of the church on approach into the village along Brook Road from the south are filtered by the housing which fronts the road. This includes the appeal property and the terrace of which it forms part. Whilst I note the views of a previous Inspector, as the proposal would be set in slightly from the front and rear walls of the dwelling and at a ridge height lower than the main roof, I do not find that the proposal would materially interfere with, or detract from, views of the church or its tower. The setting of the historic building would be preserved, in accordance with the aims of DPD Policy DP14, but this does not alter my conclusions on the first main issue. Other Matters 12. The appellant has drawn attention to the conclusion in the Council’s officer report, that the proposed development fully accords with the Council’s policy requirements. However, read in the context of the report as a whole and the Council’s formal decision, this report summary does not alter my assessment. Conclusion 13. The Framework establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and part of its environmental strand is to contribute to protecting and enhancing the built and historic environment. Core planning principles of the Framework include always seeking to secure high quality design, and to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. For the reasons given above the proposal would not comply with these principles and would not be sustainable development supported through the Framework. As a consequence, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. H Lock INSPECTOR