Double storey side extension and front porch with toilet, utility and study on ground floor and bedroom and toilet on first floor

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 August 2018 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/K2230/D/18/3203821 2 Pennine Way, Northfleet, Gravesend DA11 8LA  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 Mark Bishop against the decision of Gravesham Borough Council.  The application Ref 20180087, dated 29 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 27 March 2018.  The development proposed is double storey side extension and front porch with toilet, utility and study on ground floor and bedroom and toilet on first floor. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 24 July 2018. The content of the revised Framework has been considered but in light of the facts in this case it does not alter my conclusion. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 4. No 2 Pennine Way is a semi-detached two storey dwelling in a residential area of similar property types and short terraces. 5. The proposal involves a side extension to the front porch and a two storey extension of the same width behind this. Seen in isolation these changes would not add significant bulk or mass to the appeal property or increase its width to the extent that it would unbalance the original built form. 6. However, Pennine Way and surrounding streets comprise a generally uniform, planned layout of dwellings. This includes pairs of highly uniform semi- detached dwellings, such as Nos 2 and 14, and generous gaps between the paired dwellings and the short terraces, providing a spacious, open setting. Appeal Decision APP/K2230/D/18/3203821 2 Properties in the area are generally unaltered. Where changes have occurred, such as to No 4, these are largely single storey and have retained the characteristic gap between properties at the upper storey. 7. Due to the extent of the sideways projection of the proposed extension, it would upset this uniformity through unbalancing the character and appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings. Moreover, it would close the prominent angled gap across both storeys between the appeal property and No 4. Consequently, it would appear as an incongruous and uncharacteristic addition that would harm the street scene, particularly as it would readily be seen from the public realm. 8. I agree with the Council that the form of development proposed, if permitted, could result in pressure for similar forms of development that could have the effect of further eroding the original character and appearance of the area. 9. I have had regard to the extension at No 19 Tensing Avenue that the appellant draws attention to. While I acknowledge that this is a relatively large extension that unbalances the paired dwellings, unlike the appeal proposal a substantive gap at the upper level has been retained between the host dwelling and neighbouring unattached property. As such, its effects are not directly comparable to the current proposal. 10.Therefore, while I have found that the proposed extension would not harm the host dwelling seen in isolation, for the above reasons I conclude it would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, it is contrary to Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy, concerning the quality of development and design principles. This policy is consistent with the Framework. 11.I acknowledge that the proposed extension is intended to create additional living space. However, these personal circumstances do not overcome the harm and conflict with development plan policies that I have found would result from the proposal. Other Matters 12.I have had regard to other matters raised by an interested party concerning the possible effects of development on the nearest neighbouring property. With regard to potential overlooking and loss of privacy to No 4, I note that the nearest windows in the extension all serve non-habitable rooms, including a bathroom and landing at first floor level that could be required by condition to include obscured glass. As such, there would be no harm. 13.I agree with the Council that with regard to possible overshadowing and loss of sunlight, the extension would have a limited effect for a short period in the morning. This in itself would not lead to material harm. While the extension would reduce the gap with No 4, I note that the side windows to this property serve non-habitable rooms or are a secondary light source to the relevant room. Consequently, there would not be a harmful effect on the neighbours’ living conditions through loss of light. Appeal Decision APP/K2230/D/18/3203821 3 14.Nonetheless, for the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should not succeed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR