Conversion of bungalow into house to include extensions front and rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 July 2018 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/D/18/3202637 147 Kempshott Lane, Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG22 5LF.  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 G Bartlett against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.  The application ref: 18/00558/HSE, dated 16 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 18 April 2018.  The development proposed is conversion of bungalow into house to include extensions front and rear. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are: a) The effect of the proposed extensions upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. b) The impact of the development upon the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of 145b Kempshott Lane. Reasons a) Effect upon character and appearance. 3. The subject property comprises a detached bungalow erected during the inter- war period. It is located within a mixed residential area. Within the vicinity of the appeal site the dwellings are predominantly detached, two storey houses. The site is not within a Conservation Area or an Area of Special Residential Character. 4. The scheme before me proposes the addition of first floor accommodation under a low pitched roof together with an extended footprint to the south and a minor extension to the front. The property would also incorporate a single storey and a two storey extension to the rear, which would closely abut the common boundary with 145b Kempshott Lane to the north. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/D/18/3202637 2 5. National policy in the Framework1 [Chapter 12: Achieving well-designed places] requires the creation of high quality buildings and places. Developments should function well and add to the overall quality of the area. They should also be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment. 6. In similar vein, Policy EM10 of the Local Plan2 seeks to deliver high quality development. It sets out the need for development to positively contribute to local distinctiveness, taking into account all relevant SPDs and community documents that identify the local character and distinctiveness of an area [Section 2. a)]. 7. Appendix 13 of the Council’s adopted Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document under the heading ‘Extending your Home and Replacement Dwellings’ recommends amongst other matters the need to consider the effect of a proposal upon the existing street scene and the space between buildings. 8. I see no objection in principle to the creation of a two storey dwelling upon this wide plot having regard to the established character of the surrounding area. I accept also that the detailed design is to a good standard and is appropriate to its setting. 9. Notwithstanding these comments the increased bulk of the house, in particular its proximity to 145b Kempshott Lane, would be at odds with the more spacious character of the locality, which is clearly established by the other dwellings nearby. It is unfortunate in this case that both the subject property and its immediate neighbour are so closely sited relative to the common boundary. 10. These factors have led me to find upon the first main issue that development as proposed would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to national policy in the Framework as referred to above, Policy EN10 of the Local Plan and advice set out in Appendix 13 of the Council’s Design and Sustainability SPD. b) Impact upon living conditions. 11. As part of my site visit I noted the close relationship of the appeal site to 145b Kempshott Lane to the north. Whilst there are no principal windows within the south-facing flank elevation of that property, it does have front-facing windows close to the southwest corner that serve habitable rooms. There is also a large glazed conservatory to the rear abutting the boundary with no. 147. 12. Policy EN10 of the Local Plan requires all development proposals to respect the local environment and amenities of neighbouring properties having regard to such issues as overlooking, access to natural light, outlook and amenity space. These factors are dealt with in Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability SPD at pages 6 and 7. The document advises that an extension which has an overbearing impact upon a neighbour’s property should be avoided. Special consideration should also be given to the siting of an extension where the property to be extended is to the south of the neighbour’s. 13. Such a situation exists here, where the proposed extensions would be closely related to the south boundary of no. 145b. Whilst the single storey extension 1 The National Planning Policy Framework (as revised July 2018). 2 The Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 2016. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/D/18/3202637 3 may not have any unacceptable impact upon the neighbouring occupiers, it is nevertheless clear that the two storey elements of the proposal to front and rear and the resultant bulky flank wall would be overbearing as viewed from no. 145b and give rise to overshadowing and loss of sunlight having regard to the relative orientation of the two dwellings. 14. For these reasons, I have found upon the second main issue that development as proposed would seriously impact upon the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of 145b Kempshott Lane contrary to Policy EN10 2. b) of the Local Plan and guidance as set out at Appendix 13 of the Council’s adopted Design and Sustainability SPD. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should fail. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR