Side and rear extension

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 July 2018 by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A1015/D/18/3202391 31 Somersall Park Road, Chesterfield, S40 3LD • 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 J Wood against the decision of Chesterfield Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/00048/FUL, dated 28 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 29 March 2018. • The development proposed is a side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The Council’s concern is that as the side extension would be flush with the existing front building line, rather than set back, it would detract from the original form of the dwelling and would be overly dominant within the plot. No concerns have been raised with regard to the other elements of the proposal and I have therefore addressed only the design concerns raised with regard to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. 4. The area is characterised by properties of differing sizes but relatively consistent period detailing. This property has a distinctive two storey bay to the front with a tiled hipped roof. These elements are common in the vicinity. The bay provides the property with a strong vertical emphasis to its design. To the side of this feature there would have been a relatively narrow side element that contained the front door with a window above. This narrow element would complement the vertical emphasis of the wider main area of frontage and would, because of its limited width, remain subservient, ensuing that the full height bay remained the dominant design feature of the house. 5. The original proportions have been eroded to some extent by the existing side extension. It has increased the width of the area to the side to a similar width as the area of the feature bay. This has resulted in a change to the vertical emphasis of this section and this wider area now competes with the scale of Appeal Decision APP/A1015/D/18/3202391 2 the bay frontage. It emphasises the lack of design quality and uncharacteristic proportions of this side element. 6. This proposal would further extend the property to the side. It has been designed to assimilate with the first extension. This would result in a much more substantial area of unrelieved development with little design interest. In terms of scale, it would have a greater width than the bay front area. The increased height of the roof over this and the original extension would further emphasise its uncharacteristic proportions. I consider that it would represent poor design in this particular context. It would also extend much closer towards the neighbouring property and I agree with the Council that without some set back and relief in the frontage, this would also detract from the existing relationship with that dwelling. 7. The particular detailing and scale of this proposal would fail to respond to and integrate with the character of the house and surroundings and would fail to respect local distinctiveness. It would therefore conflict with Policy CS18(a&b) of the Local Plan: Core Strategy 2013. As the policy generally accords with the design requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, I afford it considerable weight. The Supplementary Planning Document: Successful Places 2013 advises that buildings should be designed with sensitivity to their setting and should respect local characteristics and neighbouring buildings. This proposal would undermine the quality of the existing architecture and would fail to respect the original form and proportions of the dwelling. 8. Reference has been made to a number of other extensions in the area. It has not been made clear when these decision were taken. I did not find any to be entirely comparable with regard to the scale of the combined additions and the overall proposed design. The extension at 26 Somersall Park Road appears to be the most similar although the overall roof form differs and the scale of the side addition appears to be more in keeping with the original extension to the appeal property. It is not clear what circumstances existed that led to that decision or when it was taken. However, it does not represent a good reason for accepting this proposal which would be of an unsatisfactory design and would conflict with the development plan policy and the design guidance. 9. I have considered the matters put forward by the appellant. I accept that the concerns relate only to the side extension proposed. However, the matters put forward are not sufficient to outweigh my concerns with regard to the design of the side extension. I therefore dismiss the appeal. Peter Eggleton INSPECTOR