Two-storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 August 2018 by J A B Gresty MA MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L2630/D/18/3202426 1a Margaret Road, Costessey, Norwich NR5 0AU  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 C Dique and Ms J Lewis against the decision of South Norfolk District Council.  The application Ref 2017/2897, dated 13 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 18 April 2018.  The development proposed is a two-storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. There are two main issues in this case. Firstly is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area and, secondly, is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property at 1 Margaret Road with respect to outlook and light. Reasons Character & Appearance 3. The appeal property is a small bungalow situated on a good-sized plot on a residential road which is characterised by modest sized, semi-detached bungalows. A prominent characteristic of the appeal property and the dwellings in the local area is their hipped roofs. 4. The appeal property is at the end of Margaret Road and has the back gardens of nearby two-storey dwellings on Norwich Road adjoining the west side of its plot. The appeal building stands out in the street scene as being noticeably smaller than the nearby pairs of semi-detached bungalows on Margaret Road. The small size of the bungalow in the street scene is emphasised by its relatively large plot in comparison to the plots of the nearby bungalows and the size of the neighbouring two-storey dwellings on Norwich Road. 5. The proposed extension would be attached to the back of the bungalow. To enable accommodation to be formed in its roof space, the extension would have a gable-ended roof with a ridge which would project above the peak of the host bungalow’s hipped roof. Whilst the footprint of the extension would be nearly twice that of the host bungalow, the size of the extended dwelling together with the proposed detached garage would be in keeping with the size Appeal Decision APP/L2630/D/18/3202426 2 of No 1a’s plot. Further, the width of the extension would be similar to the width of the neighbouring pair of semi-detached bungalows and, in this respect, the development would be in keeping with the pattern of development on Margaret Road. 6. However, the roof of the proposed extension would appear very large in relation to that of the host bungalow. The large appearance of the extension’s roof would be emphasised by the projection of its ridge above the peak of the host building and its gable-ended design. Because of the overall size of the extension’s roof and its gabled-ended design, it would stand out very prominently in the streetscene in comparison the prevailing pattern of development nearby on Margaret Road and Norwich Road, which is characterised by having hipped roofs. 7. Overall, as a consequence of its design, the roof of the proposed extension would result the extended dwelling appearing as an unduly prominent and alien feature in the street scene which would fail to maintain the character and appearance of the local area, contrary to the requirements of Policies DM 3.4 and DM 3.8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies Document (LP). Living Conditions 8. The eastern gable end of the proposed extension would be about two metres from the boundary fence which stands between the appeal site and the driveway and back garden of 1 Margaret Road. The gable end of the roof would be visible from No 1’s back garden and conservatory. Because of its position to the west of No 1, it is inevitable that the extension would cast some shade onto No 1’s back garden and conservatory at times towards the end of the day. 9. However, the gable end of the roof would be about four metres from No 1’s conservatory and nearest part of the main body of the garden and, taking into account its height and pitched design, the gable end would not be unduly prominent when viewed from No 1. 10. Whilst the proposed extension would, to a limited extent, reduce the amount of direct sunlight that No 1 receives when the sun is towards the west, the overall effect of the extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 1 with respect to loss of light and outlook would be limited. Although this loss of direct sunlight to No 1 does not add weight in favour of the proposed development, on balance I conclude that the development would accord with LP Policies DM 3.13 and DM 3.4 with regard to its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 1 so far as loss of light and outlook are concerned. Conclusion 11. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. In this case the appeal property has small internal living space and the proposed development would provide useful additional accommodation for the appellants, improving their living conditions. However, the design of the proposed extension, in particular its roof, would fail to meet the requirements of LP Policies DM 3.4 and DM 3.8 and the development would fail to maintain a strong sense of place. Therefore, on balance and for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development Appeal Decision APP/L2630/D/18/3202426 3 would not represent sustainable development sought by the Framework and the appeal should be dismissed. J A B Gresty INSPECTOR