Development proposed is: “Demolition of rear extension. Erection of a single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 October 2018 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G2245/D/18/3207577 120 Coltstead, New Ash Green, Longfield, Kent, DA3 8LW. • 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 Sean Fosten against the decision of Sevenoaks District Council. • The application ref: SE/18/00744/HOUSE, dated 6 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 May 2018. • The development proposed is: “Demolition of rear extension. Erection of a single storey rear extension.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are: a) The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host building and that of the surrounding area. b) The impact of the extension on the living conditions of existing and future residents of 119 Coltstead. Reasons a) Effect upon character and appearance. 3. 120 Coltstead forms the end one of a terrace of five two storey houses erected as part of the extensive New Ash Green development in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The estate is laid out with large areas of open space, including to the front of the terrace separating the houses from Ash Road and, in the subject case, between the flank boundary of no. 120 and one of the footpaths connecting various elements of the development. 4. The surrounding area is not within a Conservation Area or an Area of Special Residential Character. It is nevertheless necessary for me to have regard to the impact of the proposal upon its character and appearance, as required by national policy at Chapter 12 of the Framework1. 1 The National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018). Appeal Decision APP/G2245/D/18/3207577 2 5. The scheme before me proposes the demolition of a small, single storey flat roofed extension to the rear of the house and the erection of a much larger extension with lean-to roof. The new structure would extend rearwards by 3.6m and also project beyond the side elevation of the house to within 1m of the flank boundary. 6. National policy at Chapter 12 of the Framework seeks the creation of high quality buildings and places. Developments should function well and add to the overall quality of the area. They should also be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment (see paragraph 127). 7. Policy EN1 of the ADMP2 and Policy SP1 of the Core Strategy3 similarly require all new development to be designed to a high quality and to respond to the distinctive local character of the area in which it is situated. 8. The Council’s adopted Residential Extensions SPD4 supports the principle of a monopitch roof to a rear extension. However, the scheme before me is unusual in that a large part of the extension would extend beyond the established flank elevation of no. 120, creating a blank brick wall over 3.3m in height and 4.2m in width facing the footpath in Ash Road. Similarly, the upper section of the flank elevation to the extension would be visible above the side boundary fence. As a result, the proposal would unacceptably impact upon the visual amenities of the area. 9. Having regard to its overall size, siting and projection to the northeast the new structure would also fail the test of subservience to the host building and would appear contrived and at odds both with no. 120 and the established pattern of housing nearby. 10. I therefore find upon the first main issue that development as proposed would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and that of the surrounding area contrary to national policy at Chapter 12 of the Framework, Policy EN1 of the ADMP and Policy SP1 of the adopted Core Strategy. b) Impact upon living conditions. 11. Policy EN2 (Amenity Protection) of the ADMP requires proposals to safeguard the amenities of existing and future occupiers of nearby properties by ensuring that development does not result, amongst other matters, in visual intrusion or unacceptable loss of light. 12. The proposed extension would closely abut the common boundary with no. 119 next door. Its monopitch roof, to a height of some 3.4m, would project above the existing larch lap fence, which is approximately 2m in height. 13. Given these factors, development as proposed would have a detrimental impact upon the outlook from the rear-facing ground floor window of no. 119, which I understand serves a kitchen. The bulk of the extension would also bring about a loss of natural light to this window, while the new structure would appear as a dominant and overbearing feature when viewed from the rear private garden of no. 119. 2 Sevenoaks District Council Local Plan: Allocations and Development Management Plan (February 2015). 3 Sevenoaks District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (February 2011). 4 Sevenoaks District Council Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (May 2009). Appeal Decision APP/G2245/D/18/3207577 3 14. Accordingly, I find upon the second main issue that development as proposed would be harmful to the living conditions of existing and future residents of 119 Coltstead, contrary to Policy EN2 of the ADMP. Other Matters 15. I have noted that the New Ash Village Green Association Ltd did not object to the proposal, nor did it receive objections from the Coltstead Residents Society or from the adjoining neighbour. I further note that the Parish Council did not raise any objection to the application. However, this was subject to the proviso that the proposal would not conflict with local planning policy. 16. I have also taken account of the other extensions to which my attention was directed, including those at 96, 108 and 133 Coltstead. I am not aware of the detailed planning background to those cases. Moreover, they do not appear to affect adjoining residents, as would be the case here. They are also of differing designs, including a part two storey/part single storey extension at no. 133. 17. Neither the support expressed by third parties or the other extensions cited in the grounds of appeal are sufficient to outweigh my concerns as to the impact of the detailed scheme before me upon the character and appearance of host building and that of the surrounding area and its effect upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers at 119 Coltstead. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should fail. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR