Erection of a single-storey front extension with an access ramp

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 September 2018 by J D Westbrook BSc(hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2nd October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P4415/D/18/3208650 10 Park Road, Rotherham, S65 2RJ  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 Asaf Mahmood against the decision of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref RB2018/0316, dated 14 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 11 May 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a single-storey front extension with an access ramp. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The planning application form refers to the proposed development as including the demolition of an existing porch. However, Drawing No 70-02 (Rev B) indicates that one wall of the existing porch would remain. I have based my considerations on the detail as shown on the Drawing, which indicates that the new extension would incorporate part of the existing porch. 3. The Council considers that the installation of the access ramp would be acceptable in principle and I concur with that view. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed front extension on the character and appearance of the area around Park Road Reasons 5. No 10 is a mid-terraced house situated on the southern side of Park Road. This side of Park Road comprises a mix of terraced and semi-detached houses of similar red brick-built design. Each pair of houses shares a front gable within which is located the front door. There is a canopy with a hipped roof over each pair of doors, and there is a high degree of symmetry and uniformity along the road. The appeal property is prominent in the street scene for having a porch built onto the front elevation. It is a little over 1 metre deep and somewhat over 2 metres wide, constructed out of yellow brick with a mono-pitch roof. It appears uncharacteristic and unsympathetic in the context of the rest of the street by virtue of its design and colour. Appeal Decision APP/P4415/D/18/3208650 2 6. The proposed development would involve the demolition of most of the existing porch and the construction in its place of a larger front extension. The extension would be 1.8 metres deep by 4 metres wide. The application form and Drawing 70-02 (Rev B) indicate that it would be constructed from materials to match those existing, which I take from the drawing to mean yellow brick, since one wall from the existing porch would remain. 7. The Council contends that the front extension would have a dominant appearance on the host property by virtue of its siting, scale and height which would be harmful to the surrounding street scene by unbalancing the block of terraced properties. In this case, there is already a porch in existence that effectively unbalances the terrace, and I do not consider that the extension to this porch by only 700mm in depth and less than 2 metres in width would, of itself, result in significant harm to the appearance of the terrace. Indeed, it could be said that the “rounding-off” of the existing front porch, to line up with the side elevation of the front gable, might be said to improve the overall appearance by cleaning up the current somewhat untidy arrangement. 8. However, the current use of yellow brick for the porch, as considered above, is unsympathetic and detrimental to the otherwise uniform red brick appearance of the houses on this side of Park Road. To extend the use of this material in an even larger structure would exacerbate the harm and, for this reason, I find that the proposal would fail to take the opportunity to improve the visual appearance of the terrace, and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area along this part of Park Road. 9. The appellant contends that the extension is necessary to enable the provision of ground floor wc facilities for an elderly relative. I have a great deal of sympathy for the situation that the appellant finds himself in, but this is not reason to allow a front extension that would be significantly detrimental to the appearance of a long row of houses that otherwise exhibit a relatively uniform character and appearance. In any case, I have insufficient information before me to be able to assess whether the proposal as submitted is the only way that such wc provision could be made at the property. 10. In conclusion, I find that the proposed front extension would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area around Park Road. It would, therefore, conflict with Policy CS28 of the Council’s Core Strategy, which requires that development proposals should be responsive to their context and be visually attractive, and that design should take all opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR