Demolition of small garage and erection of front and rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 September 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/D/18/3206319 Shore House, East Bracklesham Drive, Bracklesham Bay, Chichester, PO20 8JW  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 Dan Brown against the decision of Chichester District Council.  The application Ref EWB/17/02881/DOM, dated 4 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 4 May 2018.  The development proposed is the demolition of small garage and erection of front and rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on i) the character and appearance of the host property and the locality and ii) living conditions for neighbours. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached dwelling of distinctive ‘pyramid’ design set on a private road to the north, and beach-side to the south, in a stretch of homes which vary in form, age and scale. The curtilage on the road side, which like the Appellant I shall call the front, includes a detached garage. The rear curtilage is shorter and runs into the shingle bank of the beach. The dwelling is primarily constructed with slate roof tiles and black stained timber cladding. The scene locally is attractively characterful through its variety and landscape setting and one of very agreeable appearance. 4. The proposal is as described above and would include a single storey element of about 21 metres in depth to the front, beyond a 3 metre intervening courtyard, to provide additional accommodation including bedroom, study and ancillary facilities. It would also encompass a rear single storey of about 7 metres in depth, with a more limited balcony area above, providing a dining area and allowing for re-arrangement within the existing envelope. Character and appearance 5. The degree of ancillary or other development found to the front of properties along East Bracklesham Drive has considerable variance just as the design of the main homes includes much variety. I do not know the background to those Appeal Decision APP/L3815/D/18/3206319 2 limited number of schemes which include considerable built form in the area towards the road and to my mind they do not all make a positive contribution to the scene. 6. On the case in hand, in terms of the front area, the appeal proposals would lead to a very extensive percentage of the garden area being used for substantial height single storey development. At the scale proposed the extension work would not be suitably subservient to the main property, would detract from its simple but striking appearance, and would represent excessive and sprawling coverage of the curtilage. The planned work would appear alien and out of character both with the existing dwelling and its surrounds. The visual impression given would be one of marked and incongruous over- development of the plot unsympathetic to the immediate and wider context. 7. To the rear, whilst much more modest in ground coverage than the road-side works, there would be a cumulative issue and more particularly the ungainly block-like addition would also detract from the distinctive aesthetic qualities of the host property. The steep gable end would be come unfortunately screened in part and the architectural pedigree blurred. Views from the beach are of a very diverse range of elevations and property types but nevertheless this scheme would stand out as a graceless and awkward arrangement of built form with a lesser degree of clarity of design and elevational simplicity than is presently the case. This adds to my concerns in respect of the rear area. 8. Of the planning policies cited by the Council, Policies 1 and 33 of the Chichester District Local Plan 2014 - 2029 (LP) are particularly relevant. Taken together and amongst other matters, they call for improvement of environmental conditions, enhancement of the character of a surrounding area and site, care in terms of planned scale and layout, and achievement of good deign generally. I conclude that the scheme would conflict with these policies. Living conditions 9. From my perspective irrespective of the juxtaposition other development in different parts of the road, none of which is directly comparable in any event, it would be a reasonable aim to seek to protect neighbours adjacent to the appeal site from impositions on their amenity resulting from over-development. In this instance the planned front extension works would simply be too extensive in height and length and uncompromising in block form, and in this stance would be overly proximate to the boundaries with these gardens. This would not be about modest non-critical loss of sunlight or daylight, but rather the sheer sense of being hemmed-in by building mass. The appeal scheme would be overbearing and oppressive to degrees which would be unreasonable. 10. I am satisfied that because of relative siting and comparative heights the extension planned to the rear would not unduly impact upon the property to the east. However it would be overly imposing due to the degree of forward projection, proximity and height of the side elevation in relation to the seaward elevation and immediate outdoor amenity area of the property to the west. This adds to my concerns about the principal residential amenity impacts from the appeal scheme on the front landward side. 11. Amongst policies listed by the Council LP Policy 33 seeks to ensure that development would not have any undue adverse impact on neighbouring Appeal Decision APP/L3815/D/18/3206319 3 amenity. On this matter I conclude that this scheme would conflict with this policy. Other matters 12. I sympathise with the Appellant’s wish to increase and improve the accommodation of this property. I recognise that it is presently of smaller scale than many locally and hope a satisfactory way can be found to offer scope for some extension. I can see that considerable innovative thought has been given to abutment to the host property and extension form, materials and site utilisation but regrettably whilst I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant they do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issues identified above. 13. The National Planning Policy Framework has been considered and the development plan policies which I cite mirror relevant objectives within that document. Overall conclusion 14. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality as well as on living conditions for neighbours. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR