Two storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 September 2018 by Nick Palmer BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/V2635/D/18/3207581 60 Chapel Road, Dersingham, King’s Lynn PE31 6PN  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 Mrs Katie Innes against the decision of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00838/F, dated 8 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 27 June 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey extension at 60 Chapel Road, Dersingham, King’s Lynn PE31 6PN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/00838/F, dated 8 May 2018, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule. Main Issues 2. The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposal on: i) the character and appearance of the area; and ii) the living conditions of adjacent occupants. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal property is within the Dersingham Conservation Area. This covers historic development along the roads through the village. Along Chapel Road there are houses which are detached, semi-detached and in terraces most of which appear to date from the 19th century. Many of the houses are built of carrstone but some are of red brick. Roofs are gabled and many are pantiled. The houses are informally sited and set back by varying distances from the road. The appeal property is typical of this form and layout. It is a small detached house of carrstone with brick detailing and a gabled pantile roof. It adjoins the back edge of the footpath and its garden adjoins the road frontage. Set back behind the garden and a drive there is a row of houses at №s 62 to 70. Beyond this at № 72 there is a larger detached house which adjoins the road frontage. 4. There is at present a single storey extension projecting into the garden of the property. The proposed extension would incorporate that extension but would be significantly larger in terms of its length and height. The length of the Appeal Decision APP/V2635/D/18/3207581 2 extension would be about the same as that of the existing house. Although the house is of modest size the extension would be large in relation to it. However its roof would be lower than that of the main house and its front wall would be set back from the frontage. Its width would be less than that of the existing house and although there would be a rear projecting wing this would be of lesser scale than the main part of the extension. For these reasons the massing of the extension would be less than that of the existing house and it would be subservient in scale. 5. In terms of its design, the form would match that of the existing house and the detailed treatment including window and door designs and external facing materials would match those of the house. Thus the design would blend in well with the existing building. 6. The building is identified in the Dersingham Conservation Area Character Statement (DCACS) as an Important Unlisted Building. As such it is a non- designated heritage asset. It is agreed between the parties that the building was originally larger and that a part of the building that occupied the area where the extension is proposed was demolished at some time in the 19th century. The south-east gable wall may well have originally been an internal wall but was rebuilt in 1876 from the date stone in its gable. Its thickness in comparison to the other external walls is consistent with it originally having been an internal wall. Thus the building as it was originally constructed was altered and reduced in size. However the south-east gable wall, which is of carrstone with brick quoins is of some age and is prominent in the street scene because of its proximity. 7. Within that wall there are two windows at first floor level and two in the ground floor. Its architectural design closely reflects the other elevations of the house and is attractive. However it does not contain any architectural features of particular significance. For these reasons I do not find that its concealment by the proposed extension would be harmful in terms of the historical or architectural significance of the building. 8. The adjacent houses are also identified in the DCACS as Important Unlisted Buildings. These are set back and an existing hedge along the frontage obscures views of those houses to some extent. The proposed extension would obscure the house at the rear from view from the road but this is already partly hidden by the existing extension. The extension would occupy a small proportion of the garden and the overall space in front of the adjacent houses would not be significantly altered. 9. For these reasons I find that the significance of the appeal building and the setting of other adjacent buildings as non-designated heritage assets would not be harmed. The character and appearance of the Dersingham Conservation Area would be preserved. 10. A number of Core Strategy1 policies require the protection and enhancement of heritage assets. Policies CS01, CS08 and CS12 have these requirements. Policy DM15 of the Development Management Policies2 requires scale, height, massing, materials and layout to respond sensitively and sympathetically to the local setting. For the reasons given the proposal would accord with those 1 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Core Strategy (2011) 2 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016) Appeal Decision APP/V2635/D/18/3207581 3 policies. I conclude on this issue that the proposal would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. Living Conditions 11. The Council’s second reason for refusal concerns the alleged overbearing and unneighbourly effect of the proposal in relation to the adjacent dwellings to the rear. The front walls of №s 62 and 64 are separated by their front gardens and the access drive from the appeal property. The appellant states that these distances are 12.5m and 13.5m. The rear part of the proposed extension would extend no further than existing single storey extensions to the rear of the appeal dwelling. 12. Although the extension would be of two storeys the height and scale of the gable wall facing the adjacent dwellings at the rear would be limited. Given the distances between the extension and those dwellings this would not be unacceptably overbearing or unneighbourly. № 58 is said by the appellant to be about 10m away from the proposal but the existing rear extensions would be in the foreground of any view from that property towards the proposal. 13. Because of the distances of the extension from the neighbouring houses at the rear it would not unacceptably affect the sunlight or daylight received by those properties. The proposed fenestration at the rear would consist of an obscure glazed window and high level roof lights which would not result in unacceptable overlooking. 14. For these reasons the proposal would accord with Policy DM15 of the Development Control Policies which requires protection of amenity. The proposal would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of adjacent occupants. Conclusion and Conditions 15. A condition requiring the development to be in accordance with the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. Conditions requiring details of external facing and roofing materials and windows are necessary to ensure the appearance of the development is acceptable in terms of the significance of the non-designated heritage asset and the Conservation Area. It is necessary to require that a proposed rear bedroom window is obscure glazed as indicated on the plans in order to prevent unacceptable overlooking. 16. For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Nick Palmer INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/V2635/D/18/3207581 4 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 17071 03-7 and 17071 04-6. 3) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plan, the west, south and east elevations of the extension hereby permitted shall be constructed in random rubble carrstone and brick quoins. No development shall commence on any external surface of the development until a sample panel of these materials of at least 1 metre x 1 metre has been erected on the site, the local planning authority has been notified and has approved the details in writing. The sample panel shall use the mortar type, bond and pointing technique proposed to be used. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details. 4) No development over or above foundations shall take place until full details of the window style, reveal, cill, opening arrangements and header treatment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5) No development shall take place on any external surface of the development hereby permitted until a sample of roofing materials to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 6) Before the extension hereby permitted is occupied the window marked as obscure glazed on drawing no. 17071 04-6 shall be fitted with obscure glazing. The window shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.