Erection of a two storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 September 2018 by David Wyborn BSc(Hons), MPhil, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B1225/D/18/3204882 Homelands, Swanage Road, Studland BH19 3AE  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 N Underwood against the decision of Purbeck District Council.  The application Ref 6/2018/0091, dated 20 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 May 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a two storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for Costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr N Underwood against Purbeck District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Procedural Matter 3. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 24 July 2018. The main parties have been given the opportunity to make representations on the implications of the new Framework to this appeal. I have had regard to the comments in my deliberations and I have assessed this appeal in light of the revised Framework. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Studland Conservation Area (the Conservation Area). Reasons 5. The Studland Conservation Area Appraisal Document January 2012 (the Appraisal) explains that the Conservation Area consists of an historic core of the village, containing a range of historic buildings and relics form the Second World War in a rural setting, together with an area that was predominantly developed during the first half of the twentieth century that is principally characterised by large detached suburban dwellings along the main road frontages. The significance of the Conservation Area derives from the combination of its rural and more built-up character in conjunction with the mix of historic and vernacular buildings, their architectural detailing, boundary treatments, traditional materials, the spaces between those buildings and the various open areas. Appeal Decision APP/B1225/D/18/3204882 2 6. The appeal site lies within the Conservation Area and Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. 7. Homelands is a detached dwelling fronting the main road. There are contemporary buildings to the southern side and Homelands with the two other dwellings on the northern side forms a run of three detached houses. These houses have render and brick elevations, clay tiled roofs, and spaces to their sides such that within the street scene they make a positive contribution to the character of the area. 8. The proposed extension to the southern side of Homelands would, despite being set back from the front elevation of the house and with a hipped roof, extend up to the eaves and across close to the side boundary. The effect of the extension would be to significantly diminish the space between Homelands and the boundary with the adjoining property. While this space is predominantly appreciated from areas in front of the appeal site, and is partially obscured by the tree adjoining the road, the erosion of the space to the side would undermine an important element that contributes to the character of Homelands in its plot 9. The appellant has raised the spacing and views between the adjoining dwellings to the north which it is argued are compromised because of the physical additions at each site such that the changes to the appeal property would not be out of character. However, because of the siting and form of these additions they do not have a great influence on the separation between the houses such that the lateral space still contributes to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As a consequence, this situation does not justify the present appeal proposals, indeed the contrary, as the proposed southern, side extension to Homelands would erode one of the spaces adjoining these buildings and therefore undermine the contribution the appeal property would make to the overall appearance of this group of dwellings. 10. The appellant has also drawn attention to the adjoining contemporary dwellings to the south of the appeal site and the lack of spacing between these buildings. The Council has explained that the spacing between the contemporary dwellings reflects the circumstances with the redevelopment of the hotel building on that site and the situation is not comparable with the present appeal. Regardless of the background, I have had regard to the adjoining contemporary development, the spaces between those building and the influence that they have on the character and appearance of the area. Nevertheless each application must be considered on its merits. Looking at the information before me in respect of the appeal site, the side extension would erode the space to the boundary thereby detracting from the appearance of the building within its plot with the corresponding effect that it would not preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 11. In respect of the other parts of the proposals, the proposed side extension would project to the rear of the house. The flat roof of the two storey section, which would incorporate the study area, does not assimilate well with the existing breakfast room. This would result in a mix of roof forms and shapes such that the overall composition at the rear would be discordant in its appearance. Appeal Decision APP/B1225/D/18/3204882 3 12. On the northern side the proposed two storey addition is located behind the front section of the house. The characteristic horizontal, raised brick course separating the brick and render elevational treatments is replicated and the roof form mirrors the existing house. In these circumstances, this addition would preserve the character and appearance of the property and the Conservation Area. However the first floor en-suite addition to the northern side elevation, because of its projecting form, absence of the raised brick course and overall design, would appear a prominent and incongruous addition to the property. 13. With the exception of the two storey extension to the northern side elevation, the extensions to the property, for the reasons explained above, are not considered to harmonise or integrate successfully with the existing building. Consequently, these extensions would harm the character and appearance of the host building and thereby the contribution it makes to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 14. In assessing all these matters, I have also taken into account the limited public views of the rear elevation, the overall size and impact of the adjoining buildings to the south and the evidence regarding the building line in this area. Nevertheless these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified above. 15. I have also had regard to the advice in the Purbeck District Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (the Design Guide) and the Appraisal. Overall I consider that the approach set out in these documents would not be met as the extensions would not successfully integrate with the host building. 16. The harm that would arise from the appeal development would be localised and therefore the impact on the Conservation Area as a whole is less than substantial within the meaning of paragraph 196 of the Framework. In weighing the public benefits of the proposals against the harm identified, as any benefits would essentially be private in relation to the improved accommodation, any public benefits of the appeal scheme are therefore of no more that limited weight. 17. As a consequence, the public benefits would not outweigh the harm I have identified. This has resulted in a conflict with paragraph 194 of the Framework because the harm to the Conservation Area does not have a clear and convincing justification and the Framework requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated assets. 18. Thus my conclusion is that the proposal harms the significance of the Conservation Area. The character or appearance of the Conservation Area and the host building would not be preserved or enhanced. Consequently, the proposal fails to adhere to Policies D and LHH of the Purbeck Local Plan Part 1 (adopted November 2012) and the Framework as well as the advice in the Design Guide and the Appraisal which seeks to ensure that, among other things, development conserves the appearance, setting and character of heritage assets. Other Matters 19. The site lies within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) where the conservation and enhancement of landscape and scenic beauty are matters which carry great weight. However, as the site lies within the Appeal Decision APP/B1225/D/18/3204882 4 settlement area, and is located among other buildings, notwithstanding my findings on the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the development would not affect the AONB in this case. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. David Wyborn INSPECTOR