Proposed extensions to rear and side plus loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 September 2018 by Tobias Gethin BA (Hons), MSc, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/3208136 10 Essington Close, Exmouth, Devon, EX8 4QY  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 Frank Tiley against the decision of East Devon District Council.  The application Ref 18/0358/FUL, dated 7 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 2 July 2018.  The development proposed is described as ‘Proposed extensions to rear and side plus loft conversion’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. The Council’s decision notice and the appellant’s appeal form describe the appeal proposal as ‘Extensions to rear and side including extension to roof area to provide loft conversion’. This revised description of development more accurately describes the appeal proposal. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the development’s effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to scale, height and massing. Reasons 4. With the exception of some larger properties near the junction with Mount Pleasant Avenue, Essington Close generally consists of modestly sized single- storey bungalows. I therefore agree with the appellant that the larger buildings found at the end of the street are out of character with the surrounding area. 5. While the properties immediately surrounding the appeal site each have their own characteristics – including varying angles to the street, a mix of detached and semi-detached buildings and various roof styles – they have a clear, common and simple form and generally create a uniform character along the street as a whole. Having a similar height, scale and mass to its neighbours, the appeal site, with its uncomplicated roof design, clearly contributes to the street’s character and appearance. 6. Some properties on the street do have accommodation in their roofs, provided by rooflights and in some cases (such as No 8) roof extensions, including Appeal Decision APP/U1105/D/3208136 2 dormers. However, the proposed large roof extension, including dormers on both sides, would dominate the host building. Despite the pitched roofs of the dormers somewhat lessening their apparent size from the street, the proposal would significantly increase the property’s overall scale, mass and height. Consequently, the proposal would fundamentally alter the building’s character and appearance and fail to sufficiently relate to or respect its surroundings. 7. Although external materials would be appropriate, the proposal’s complicated roof forms and its overall size and mass would be at odds with the street’s smaller scale character and its generally uniform appearance. From the street, and despite the dormers’ pitched roofs, the roof extension as a whole would also appear as a much larger addition than the flat roof dormer next door, which seen from the public realm appears as a less dominating addition to No 8 compared to how the appeal proposal would be seen. 8. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I therefore find that the proposal does not accord with Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013- 2031, adopted 2016. This sets out that proposals will only be permitted where they respect the key characteristics of their surroundings and ensure that (amongst other aspects) the scale, massing and height of buildings relate well to their context. Other matters 9. With the exception of the next door property, which I have considered above, the appellant’s other examples of house extensions cover a much wider area than the appeal site’s immediate context and therefore do not reflect the particular circumstances of the appeal proposal and its surroundings. These examples are not therefore directly comparable, and in any event each case must be considered on its own merits. 10. I note the appellant’s reference to potential amendments and their frustration at not further discussing the proposal prior to the Council’s decision. However, no amendments were submitted with the appeal and in any event such amendments should be made via a new planning application. I have therefore considered the appeal on the evidence and submitted plans before me. 11. Although the appellant references permitted development rights, I have not been supplied with detailed evidence to demonstrate whether or not the proposal would be permitted development. In any event, it is not for me, under a section 78 appeal, to determine whether or not the proposal falls within permitted development rights. I have therefore determined the appeal proposal on that basis. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Tobias Gethin Inspector