To demolish porch and part of garage and to erect single storey extension with dormer to the east of the existing building. To create a kitchen/dining/living room and two bedrooms and a bathroom. And to create additional gravel parking area

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 August 2018 by A Spencer-Peet BSc.(Hons) PGradDip.Law PGDip.LP an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25th September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/V3310/D/18/3203790 11 Estuary Park, Combwich, Bridgwater, Somerset TA5 2QP  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 Damon Johnson against the decision of Sedgemoor District Council.  The application Ref 39/18/00002/DRT, dated 26 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 23 March 2018.  The development proposed is described as ‘to demolish porch and part of garage and to erect single storey extension with dormer to the east of the existing building. To create a kitchen/dining/living room and two bedrooms and a bathroom. And to create additional gravel parking area’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted to demolish porch and part of garage and to erect single storey extension with dormer to the east of the existing building. To create a kitchen/dining/living room and two bedrooms and a bathroom. And to create additional gravel parking area, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 39/18/00002/DRT, dated 26 January 2018, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the host dwelling. Reasons 3. The appeal property is semi-detached, and is positioned on a corner plot within the Estuary Park estate and the adjacent roadway forms part of a cul-de-sac serving a small number of dwellings. The proposal is for an extension to the existing property, which would necessitate the removal of part of a double garage. 4. Estuary Park consists of detached and semi-detached properties which, at this point within the estate, are primarily single storey or dormer bungalow dwellings. These properties are set back from the roadside and footpath, with the frontage of nearby properties having a consistent pattern and amount of garden space. The individual properties are served by a mixture of gravel driveways, garages and carports. Appeal Decision APP/V3310/D/18/3203790 2 5. The appeal property has a straightforward and pleasing design, and is consistent with a small number of other properties which lie within Estuary Park in terms of form. However the appeal property occupies a corner plot, with the external amenity space to the front being substantially larger in area than the gardens of surrounding neighbouring properties. This large open area gives an unbalanced look to this portion of the roadside, with the appeal property and its neighbour at 9 Estuary Park appearing detached from the line of properties which run through the cul-de-sac and along this section of Estuary Park. This unbalanced appearance is most apparent when the appeal property is viewed in conjunction with the property across the junction of the cul-de-sac at 23 Estuary Park, which has been extended to a point where the external amenity space is consistent with other properties within the estate. 6. As such I find that the proposal would not be visually intrusive on the street scene, or would adversely affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The height of the proposed development would bring the appeal property in line with the size of the neighbouring property at 9 Estuary Park, with the extension just beyond the line of garages bringing the appeal property in closer alignment with the dwellings occupying the cul-de-sac plots. The resulting garage would then appear to the onlooker as being set back from the line of properties and, with the proposed gravel driveway, would be consistent with a large proportion of the properties within the estate in terms of scale and mass. 7. Finally in this regard, I find that the proposed side elevation of the appeal property would not be viewed in the context of the dwellings which comprise the main section of Estuary Park, but rather it would be viewed in the context of the dwellings to be found within the cul-de-sac development. As such the dwellings within the cul-de-sac possess similar blank side elevations which lack fenestration. Accordingly I find that the proposal would not look out of place when viewed from the cul-de-sac. 8. Consequently I find that the character of the host building would not be adversely affected, with the proposed development appearing balanced against its neighbours, when viewed from the highway or footpath. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be contrary to Policy D2 of the Sedgemoor Local Development Framework Core Strategy, adopted 2011, and which seeks, among other matters, to promote high quality design that responds positively to local characteristics. 9. The Council refers to Policy D16 of the adopted Sedgemoor Local Development Framework Core Strategy in their reasons for refusal, and in this regard there does not appear to be any concern regarding any pollution factors which may affect the site. As such, whilst the amount of external amenity space will be reduced, it would not be so reduced as to be unacceptable in terms of the amenity space available to future occupiers of the property. Further, and by virtue of the balance which the proposed development will bring to this section of the estate, I find that the proposal would not be visually dominant and therefore complies with the policy. Conditions 10. In terms of conditions, and in the interests of certainty, I have included the three year period in which the planning permission may be implemented as this is a statutory requirement, and further find it reasonable to include a condition Appeal Decision APP/V3310/D/18/3203790 3 requiring the external materials to match the existing building where possible. I also consider a condition requiring that the proposed driveway be kept solely for the purpose of parking vehicles, to be appropriate and proportionate in the interests of preserving the character of the surrounding area. 11. Further I agree with the Council that the exceptional condition which restricts permitted development rights is proportionate in this case, given that the footprint and overall scale of the existing dwelling would be increased by a significant amount by virtue of the proposal. 12. Finally in regards to conditions, I do not agree with the Council’s request that a condition be imposed which restricts the proposed development to a ‘single family dwelling’. In this instance I find that to impose such a condition would be unreasonable given the restriction it would place on owners of the property being prevented from renting a room within their home. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should succeed and planning permission be granted. Andrew Spencer-Peet INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/V3310/D/18/3203790 4 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted. 2) The area allocated for parking on the submitted plan (DRG No. 014) shall be kept clear of obstruction at all times and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted. 3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, the prior written permission of the local planning authority shall be sought for any additions or extensions to the dwelling by the submission of a planning application. 4) The external facing materials of the development hereby approved shall match in colour and texture those of the existing building. Where a close match cannot be found, or where the existing building consists of a mix of materials, no building works shall be commenced until details and/or samples of the new materials proposed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule of materials.