Erection of a single storey extension to side

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/18/3205314 14 Hayfell Avenue, Morecambe LA4 4TS  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 Paul McNally against the decision of Lancaster City Council.  The application Ref 18/00255/FUL was refused by notice dated 3 April 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a single storey extension to side. 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 that 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 local area. Reasons 4. The proposal is to erect a single storey extension at the side of the appeal property, which is a semi-detached bungalow with accommodation in the roof space. It occupies a prominent corner plot at the junction of Hayfell Avenue and Hampsfell Drive within a mainly residential area. Like some properties in the vicinity of the site, No 14 has been externally altered and extended. In particular, the main roof has been converted from a hip to a gable end and a flat roof dormer has been placed onto each of the extended front and rear roof slopes. There is also a full width ground floor rear addition. 5. The new side addition would be slightly set back from the main front wall and extend to a depth of about 7 metres. It would include a hipped roof and be constructed of materials to match those of the existing dwelling. The proposal would be narrower and thus smaller than a side extension to No 14 that was recently refused planning permission on application and appeal. 6. Nevertheless, the new extension would still be a sizeable addition. It would significantly widen the built form of No 14, increase its footprint and noticeably add to its scale and mass. When seen together with the previous extensions, the proposal would further seriously imbalance the pair given that the attached bungalow appears to retain its original form, simple design and hipped roof. Appeal Decision APP/A2335/D/18/3205314 2 7. The proposal would also step forward of the visually strong building line to the properties that address the same side of Hampsfell Drive. In doing so, the side extension would draw the eye because it would disrupt the well-established pattern of existing development. Furthermore, by introducing new built form within the side garden of No 14, the new development would noticeably diminish the sense of space between the host building and the highway at a corner of the adjacent junction. The main outcome of all of these points is that significant harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the local area. As such, the proposal does not overcome the principal concerns raised in relation to the previous appeal. 8. The appellant’s agent states that subsequent commissions to extend properties elsewhere have sought to follow similar lines to the enlargement of No 14. Reference is also made to the opportunity to construct a large flat roof garage at the side of the property through the exercise of permitted development (PD) rights, which would not require planning permission. As few precise details of the PD scheme have been provided, I am unable to gauge whether or not it would be visually inferior to the proposal as the appellant suggests. On the limited information provided, it does not justify the grant of permission for a development that would be incompatible in its context. 9. I share the appellant’s view that some extensions to properties on visually prominent plots in the area around the site have respected the character and appearance of the host building and blended into their street scene with varying degrees of success. As I do not have the full background details of these developments I cannot be certain that their particular circumstances are similar of the proposal before me. In any event, it is a central planning principle that each case should be assessed on its own merits, as I have done. 10. As the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the local area, 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 and appropriate siting and scale. 11. The proposal would make efficient use of the appeal property. The demolition and removal of the existing garage, situated to the rear of the main dwelling, would increase the amount of useable private outdoor space at the rear of the dwelling. No harm would be caused to the living conditions of the occupiers of any nearby properties. However, these considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Conclusion 12. For the reasons set out above, and taking into account the absence of objections from others, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR