Single storey rear extension and first floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 October 2018 by Andrew Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/E1210/D/18/3206600 25 Seaway Avenue, Christchurch BH23 4EU  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 M Stewart against the decision of Christchurch Borough Council.  The application Ref 8/18/0322/HOU, dated 4 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 16 April 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension and first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor side extension at 25 Seaway Avenue, Christchurch BH23 4EU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 8/18/0322/HOU, dated 4 February 2018, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as they relate to the first floor side extension only: 001, 002, 003 and 004. Notwithstanding the extent of development shown on the approved plans permission is neither granted nor implied for the rear extensions. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Procedural Matter 2. The proposal has been described as ‘single storey rear extension and first floor side extension’ on the initial application form and Council’s decision notice. However, drawings clearly also show a substantial first floor extension proposed at the rear. Although the appellant is of the view that the Council considered the first floor rear extension to be acceptable the Council has confirmed that it did not take this element of the proposal into account when it considered the application, and it did not advertise the proposal in a manner which described this element. The rear ground floor extension is not severable from the rear first floor extension; however the rear extensions are clearly severable from the side extension. Therefore I have considered the appeal on the basis of only the first floor side extension. I have not had any regard for the rear extensions in determining the appeal. Appeal Decision APP/E1210/D/18/3206600 2 Main Issue 3. The effect of the first floor side extension on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The area within which the appeal is located comprises large detached individually designed properties, set back from the tree lined road, in spacious plots. This gives the area a distinctive and pleasant character. The gaps between properties generally contribute to the spacious character of the area. 5. The appeal property has a well composed symmetrical front elevation with a hipped roof. The proposed extensions would significantly increase the size of the existing property. The Council has made reference to a previous planning decision relating to a similar scheme at this property, where the Council had similar concerns relating to the loss of space between the dwellings and the impact this would have on the area. I have not been given details of this scheme; however I note that the Council confirm that the first floor side extension is reduced in depth compared with the previous proposal. 6. Gaps between properties in the area are often filled with single storey extensions, such as garages. This is the case with the appeal property. Building over this garage would bring the bulk of the house closer to the neighbouring property. The extension would be set back from the front of the existing house with an appropriately subservient form, reflected also by a lower roof. A reasonable gap would still be retained between the two properties. I am satisfied that the retained gap, along with the subservient nature of the extension would ensure that the spacious character of the area would not be harmed by the proposed development, nor would a terracing effect result. 7. Therefore the development would not harm the character and appearance of the area, and as such is in accordance with policies KS1 and HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 – Core Strategy (2014) and Saved Policy H12 of the Borough of Christchurch Local Plan (2001), which refer to a presumption in favour of sustainable development and seek to ensure that new development respects the character of the area. Other matters 8. The Council has provided a copy of a Tree Preservation Order, however the order does not appear to relate to the appeal site, and no mention of this has been made in the Council’s submissions. Therefore this has not been a determinative factor. Conditions 9. I have had regard to the planning conditions that have been suggested by the Council and considered them against the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed a condition relating to materials, as suggested by the Council, to safeguard the character of the existing dwelling and area. I have amended the approved plan condition to clarify the scope of the permission. 10. The Council has suggested a condition to require the appellant to submit a Construction Management Plan, to secure such matters as car parking provision Appeal Decision APP/E1210/D/18/3206600 3 for contractors, details of materials storage and site hoardings. I am not satisfied that this meets the necessity test set out in the Framework. The site is relatively large, with a large area of hard standing in front of the house, which should be adequate for storage and parking. Furthermore the Council has given no reason for suggesting this decision. I am therefore of the view that this condition is not necessary. Conclusion 11. For the reasons above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the first floor side extension. Andrew Tucker Inspector