Double storey rear and side extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 June 2018 by Alex Hutson MATP CMLI MArborA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N1730/D/18/3201677 22 Rochester Grove, Fleet GU51 3LU  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 Martyn Day against the decision of Hart District Council.  The application Ref 17/02967/HOU, dated 11 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 9 February 2018.  The development proposed is “Double storey rear and side extensions”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issues 2. The main issues are: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and the effect of the proposal on protected species. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a detached, two storey dwelling with a detached garage building and is located within a wider residential area. It displays a well- proportioned and regular front elevation which affords it a simple elegance. Though there is some variety of housing types and sizes along Rochester Grove, the appeal property is the first in line of a group of six dwellings which display a similar form and appearance and therefore provide a strong level of uniformity along this part of the road. The appeal property and those others within the group thus make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the streetscene and area. 4. The proposal seeks to demolish the garage and to erect a two storey rear and part two storey, part single storey side extension. I recognise that the garage building is of little architectural merit and that the proposed side and rear extensions would be constructed from materials and would incorporate features to complement those of the appeal property. I also note that the Council has not raised any particular concerns in respect of the proposed two storey rear extension element. In addition, I accept that the two storey side extension element would be set back from the front elevation of the appeal property and would have a lower ridge height to appear as a subordinate addition. Appeal Decision APP/N1730/D/18/3201677 2 5. However, the ground floor of the side extension would extend considerably beyond the flank wall of its first floor element. This would unbalance the appearance of the appeal property by a marked degree and would detract substantially from its elegant, well-proportioned and regular front elevation. Consequently, the proposed side extension, overall, would fail to integrate well with the appeal property and would relate poorly to it. This would appear at considerable odds with the pattern of development along this part of the road and would diminish materially the uniformity of the group of buildings of which it forms part. The proposal would therefore result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property, the streetscene and the area. 6. The appellant makes reference to other properties1 in the area which have been extended and has provided images of these. However, some of these are not along Rochester Grove. Some do not have a similar form or appearance as that of the appeal property. Some do not have ground floor side extension elements that extend beyond first floor side extension elements. As a result of these factors, or a combination of them, the properties cited do not share the same context as the appeal property and any extensions to them are not wholly comparable to the proposal the subject of this appeal. In any event, each case must be considered on its own merits. 7. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be contrary to saved Policies GEN1, GEN4 and URB16 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996- 2006 (Local Plan). These policies require, amongst other things, development to be in keeping with local character, to sustain or improve the urban design qualities of settlements and for extensions to be sympathetic in scale and character to the existing dwelling and surrounding properties. These policies are consistent with the broad aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seek planning to secure high quality design and to take account of the different roles and character of different areas. Protected species 8. The appeal property lies approximately 100 metres from the Basingstoke Canal. The Council sets out that this is an important foraging and commuting resource for bats, a species protected by law. The Council also states that there is a known bat roost in close proximity to the appeal property. I have no substantive reasons to doubt the Council’s assertions on these matters. 9. The Council identifies that bats can roost both internally, such as in a loft, or externally, such as under tiles, and that they can be difficult to detect. Given the proximity of the appeal property to the Basingstoke Canal and to a known bat roost, and that the proposal would involve some roof alterations, it is my view that a bat survey, carried out by a suitably qualified person and in line with current best practice, would be required to fully assess the impact of the proposal on this species. 10. A document titled ‘Bat Survey’ has been provided by the appellant which concludes that bats are not present and thus will not be affected by the proposal. Nonetheless, it does not appear to have been undertaken by a suitably qualified person and does not set out any clear methodology to demonstrate that best practice has been followed. It is therefore insufficient to 1 Including 26 Rochester Grove, 3 Aldershot Road and a dwelling along Brook Close Appeal Decision APP/N1730/D/18/3201677 3 adequately demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on bat species. 11. I note that a similar level of information in respect of the impact on bats was submitted in support of some other planning applications in the area2. However, these applications date back to 2012 and 2013 and it is unclear to me whether the Council knew of the bat roost in the locality at the time or whether the Council’s Biodiversity Officer was consulted and provided advice on these applications, as has been the case with regard to this proposal. Moreover, it falls on me to determine the appeal on the basis of the evidence, and as can be seen from the above, the Council’s position on this matter is one that I would concur with. 12. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to saved Policy CON5 of the Local Plan, which requires, amongst other things, development not to adversely affect animal species protected by law or their habitats. This policy is consistent with the aims and objectives of the Framework which seek planning to minimise impacts on biodiversity. Other matters 13. Though there have been no objections to the proposal from neighbours or from Fleet Town Council, this does not inevitably indicate an absence of harm and does not automatically mean that planning permission should be granted. Conclusion 14. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alex Hutson INSPECTOR 2 Including at 26 Rochester Grove (Ref 12/01969/HOU) and 11 Aldershot Avenue (Ref 13/01073/HOU)