Remove existing garage and conservatory and install new double storey side and front extension complete with single storey porch to front and garden room to the rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 September 2018 by Nick Palmer BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/V2635/D/18/3203451 Woodstock, 22 School Road, Terrington St John, Wisbech PE14 7SE  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 & Mrs Darren & Stephanie Carter against the decision of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00284/F, dated 15 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 25 April 2018.  The development proposed is “remove existing garage and conservatory and install new double storey side and front extension complete with single storey porch to front and garden room to the rear”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. School Road is a residential road comprising late 20th century houses. Along the west side of the road these are mainly semi-detached and of similar size and appearance. The houses are set back from the road and step forward in the vicinity of the appeal property. This and its adjoining neighbour are forward of the houses to the south and the house to the north is significantly further forward. 4. I saw on my visit that a number of houses have been extended through the addition of ground floor front extensions and two storey side extensions. The scale of the ground floor extensions is limited and two storey side extensions are flush with the front walls and roofs of the houses as originally designed. 5. The Council has no objection to the proposed single storey extensions to the front and rear and I see no reason to disagree. The single storey front extension would align with a similar extension to the adjoining house. 6. However the scale of the proposed two storey extension would be substantial in relation to the existing house. It would extend up to the side boundary and project significantly forward of the front wall of the dwelling. It would provide complete new rooms at ground and first floor levels that would be forward of Appeal Decision APP/V2635/D/18/3203451 2 the main part of the house. The scale and bulk of this extension would far exceed those of other extensions along the road. 7. The front extension would project no further forward than the adjacent house to the north and its visibility would be limited from that direction. However it would be intrusive and dominant as a result of its scale when seen from the south. Its bulk would unbalance the appearance of the existing dwelling and the pair of semi-detached houses. For these reasons it would be discordant and out of character with the established pattern and form of development along the road. 8. In terms of its detailed design the roof forms and window designs would be in keeping with those of the existing dwelling but this does not alter my findings. Policy CS08 of the Core Strategy1 requires high quality design which responds to the context and character of places. Policy DM15 of the Development Management Policies2 requires scale, height and massing to respond sensitively and sympathetically to the local setting. For the reasons given the proposed two storey extension would not respond sensitively and sympathetically to the local setting. The height, scale and massing of the proposal would be unacceptably dominant. For these reasons the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 9. I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Nick Palmer INSPECTOR 1 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Core Strategy (2011) 2 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016)