Demolition of existing single storey side extension and construction of new single storey side extension, linking to existing detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 August 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A2335/D/18/3205262 20 School Road, Heysham LA3 2RG  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 Andy Martin against the decision of Lancaster City Council.  The application Ref 18/00412/FUL was refused by notice dated 23 May 2018.  The development proposed is the demolition of existing single storey side extension and construction of new single storey side extension, linking to existing detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. I have assessed the proposed development in the light of the revised National Planning Policy Framework, which was issued on 24 July 2018. Main issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a mainly 2-storey semi-detached dwelling that lies within a predominantly residential area. At the side of the main house is a single storey projection that is set back from the front elevation and behind a frontage wall. Beyond this projection is a flat roof detached garage, which stands at a lower level to the appeal dwelling due to the sloping ground. 5. From what I saw, properties along School Road and nearby streets vary in size, type and style. In the vicinity of the site, I also observed that some buildings have been extended and externally altered including those to which the appellant has referred. Consequently, there is considerable variety to the existing built form in the local area to which the appeal dwelling belongs. 6. The new single storey side extension would link the main house with the garage using external materials to match those of the existing dwelling. In itself, the proposed extension would be relatively wide. However, from School Road it would also be seen together with the existing garage with which it would connect. Combined, the new extension and garage would form a single entity that would be much wider than the main house. In that context, the extension would appear to be excessively wide. That the new addition would also include a long roof sloping at a different angle to that of the host building Appeal Decision APP/A2335/D/18/3205262 2 and front windows that would contrast in size and shape to those of the main house would visually accentuate its awkward relationship to the dwelling. 7. When seen from the adjacent highway, the front of the garage would look similar to the existing building aside from the introduction of a sloping roof. The line of the new addition would also broadly follow that of the existing frontage wall. Even so, the proposed extension would be noticeably taller and more substantive than the existing wall and the side projection beyond. It would also have a long sloping roof. The relationship of the proposal to the host building and its appearance in the street scene would therefore markedly differ to the existing side projection and the frontage wall. 8. Due to its considerable width, roof form and fenestration, the proposal would be a discordant feature in the local street scene. From School Road, the appeal scheme would draw the eye as an incongruous and over-sized addition. It would detract from the character and appearance of the host house, the pair and the local area even among the varied built form within it. 9. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into account the various extensions to properties in the vicinity of the site. None of the properties that I saw include extensions of a comparable scale and form to that proposed. The overly bulky side extensions to the properties at 10 and 14 School Road to which my attention has been drawn do not provide any support for what is intended at the site. As few background details of the development at 37 Westgate have been provided I cannot be certain that the particular circumstances in that case are directly comparable with the proposal before me. In any event, each development should be assessed on its own merits, as I have done. 10. The Council has recently granted planning permission for a 2-storey side extension at the appeal property that is larger than the proposal. It would also reduce the distance between the existing dwelling and the garage. Unlike the proposal before me, the approved scheme would not exceed the width of the host building nor link with the existing garage. It also includes a roof form and fenestration that would be in keeping with the character of the host building. 11. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policy DM35 of A Local Plan for Lancaster District 2011 - 2031. This policy aims to ensure that development positively contributes to the character of the area through good design. 12. The proposal would make efficient use of the appeal property by bringing into use land at the side of the house. Once complete, the appeal scheme would also provide additional living accommodation that would improve the living conditions of the appellant and his family. However, these considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR