Removal of existing conservatory and construction of new single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 September 2018 by Clive Tokley MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G2625/D/18/3205108 1 Hanover Court, Norwich NR2 2HE.  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 Kieron Dudley against the decision of Norwich City Council.  The application ref 18/00233/F, dated 8 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 3 April 2018.  The development proposed is described as removal of existing conservatory and construction of new single storey side extension. Decision 1. As regards the screen fence the appeal is dismissed. 2. As regards the side extension only the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the removal of existing conservatory and construction of new single-storey side extension at 1 Hanover Court, Norwich NR2 2HE. The permission is in accordance with the terms of the application ref 18/00233/F, dated 8 February 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall be in accordance with the details indicated on the planning application form and drawing No 004 rev D. 3) Prior to the commencement of development a tree protection plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. That plan shall indicate the measures to be taken to protect the trees between the proposal and the boundary wall for the duration of demolition and construction work and to safeguard their future health. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved measures. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 003 and 004 rev D. Clarification of proposal and main issue 3. The drawings indicate that the proposal includes a screen fence and this is referred to in the officer report and the appellant’s statement. Taking account of its height and location I consider that the fence would require express planning permission; however it is not referred to in the description of the proposal. I have determined the appeal on the basis that the fence is part of Appeal Decision APP/G2625/D/18/3205108 2 the proposal. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. Hanover Road is a residential street to the south of the City centre. Most of the street is fronted by two-storey terraced houses but an exception occurs towards the north eastern end of the south east side of the road where a short cul-de-sac (Hanover Court) extends to the south serving three bungalows and the appeal property. No 1 Hanover Court has been extended to create a two- storey house which has frontages to the cul-de-sac and Hanover Road. To the north east of the appeal property is a modern three-storey flat development. 5. The Hanover Road boundary of the appeal property is marked by a high brick wall which returns around the corner into Hanover Court. The corner of the wall supports overhanging shrubs and behind the wall is a row of trees in the garden of the appeal property. A similar wall bounds the bungalow to the south west and the grounds of the flats to the north east. The main two-storey flank wall of the appeal house is set further back from Hanover Road than the front walls of the terraced houses. A modern conservatory has been added between that wall and the trees. At the time of my visit the trees were in leaf and the combination of the boundary wall and vegetation limited the extent to which the conservatory could be seen from the street. 6. The proposal would extend further along the flank wall of the house than the conservatory and its flat roof design would result in it being a bulkier structure than the conservatory. The increase in bulk would be especially apparent at roof level where the flat roof of the proposal, whilst slightly lower than the maximum height of the conservatory, would be higher than the eaves of that building. 7. The upper part of the flank wall of the proposal would be seen from the lower level of the street above the boundary wall. The proposal would also be seen in views along Hanover Road above the fences and walls. However the extension would not be seen in true elevation and it would be in the context of the house. The application form indicates that no trees would be removed and the appellant indicates that a condition that ensures that the boundary trees are retained would be acceptable. 8. Being set back behind the boundary wall and the garden trees I consider that the proposed extension would not be unacceptably intrusive in the street scene or detract from its character and appearance. The proposed finishing materials would match those of the house and I consider that its appearance would be more in keeping with the house and the street scene than the existing conservatory. 9. The proposal includes a cedar screen extending above the height of the boundary wall supported by free-standing posts. I consider that such a screen would not be necessary to screen the proposal and would introduce an alien form of construction that would be more intrusive than the development that it is designed to screen. 10. I have concluded that the proposed extension would not conflict with Policy DM3 (Design Principles) of the Norwich local plan Development management Appeal Decision APP/G2625/D/18/3205108 3 policies plan; however the proposed screen would fail to respond to the character of the area and would therefore not accord with that policy. Conditions 11. I have imposed the normal conditions governing commencement and identifying the approved drawings. In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance I have imposed a condition requiring that the finishing materials should be in accordance with the application form and approved drawing. The officer report indicates that in the event of permission being granted a condition should be imposed requiring a tree protection plan. This condition is not referred to on the Council’s questionnaire but I consider that it is necessary to ensure the protection and future retention of the trees. In order to be effective the tree protection plan must be approved by the Council prior to the commencement of the development. Conclusion 12. Taking account of all matters I have concluded that the extension would not detract from the character or appearance of the area and that as regards this part of the proposal the appeal should succeed. However I have concluded that the screen fence would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the area. I consider that this element of the proposal is severable from the extension and I have therefore concluded that as regards the screen fence the appeal should be dismissed. Clive Tokley INSPECTOR