Enlargement of ground floor living room and porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 September 2018 by C Beeby BA (Hons) MIPROW an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/X3025/D/18/3208101 141 Southwell Road East, Rainworth NG21 0DE  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 Tony Chambers against the decision of Mansfield District Council.  The application Ref 2018/0271/HHA, dated 17 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 20th June 2018.  The development proposed is enlargement of ground floor living room and porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons Character and appearance 3. Housing around the appeal site on the northern side of Southwell Road East is a mix of generally well-spaced semi-detached and bungalow properties. Most have their original frontages, although some have modest non-original porches. 4. The host building (141 Southwell Road East) and its neighbouring semi- detached properties, Nos 143 and 145, are set markedly further back than other properties on their side of the road. This gives all three properties a generously sized area to the front which, combined with their aligned frontages, provides an open and spacious character. 5. Nos 139 and 141 are somewhat closer to each other than properties generally along this side of the road. However, no cramped impression is created due to the setting of 141 at a greater distance back from the road, and beyond the rear elevation of 139. 6. The introduction of a close neighbouring building to No 139 for approximately half of its building length would be likely to interrupt the open character of these front gardens. The proposed extension would bring the ground floor frontage to No 141 closer to the road and create a narrow space between Nos 141 and 139, at approximately 1.4 metres between the bathroom window of 139 and the proposed extension’s front elevation. The extension’s 4 metre projection and proximity to No 139 would thus create a cramped impression, particularly when viewed from the road in front of and to the east of the appeal Appeal Decision APP/X3025/D/18/3208101 2 property. Whilst this effect would not generally be evident when approaching the appeal site from the west because it would be largely hidden by No 139, the extension’s prominence within open front gardens would adversely affect the area’s appearance. 7. The host building appears of a narrower width than neighbouring properties and the proposal would result in an unbalanced height to length ratio, elongating the property to an incongruous degree, with consequent harm to the local character of generally well-proportioned properties. 8. Although I do not find harm resulting from the majority of the proposal’s design and the use of generally matching materials in the scheme would largely complement the host property, windows to the current front of the property are all leaded, whilst the extension’s front window would not be. Given the uniformity of the upper floor windows and the particular prominence of the property’s leaded dormer window, the contrasting extension glazing would harm the appearance of the property and, consequently, the character and appearance of the area. 9. I conclude for the above reasons that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with saved Policies BE1 and H13 of the Mansfield District Local Plan (“the MDLP”), which together seek to ensure that the character and appearance of developments relate well to their area. Other Matters 10. Although it was not relied upon as a reason for refusal of permission, the Council has made reference to the proposal’s effect on the privacy of No 139. An objection to the proposal was also received from the occupier of No 139, citing privacy concerns. I note the points raised, however given the presence of obscure glazing to the bathroom window mentioned I do not consider it likely that the privacy levels experienced by occupiers of No 139 would be materially affected. 11. The appellant has proposed a reduction in the length of the extension scheme from 4 metres to 3.5 metres, however no plans in support of this proposal are before me and therefore I have not considered it further. Conclusion 12. For the reasons above the appeal is dismissed. C Beeby Inspector