2 storey side extension to form enlarged entrance hall, utility room & cloakroom with en-suite bathroom over 1st floor rear extension to form new master bedroom removal of existing part thatched roof to front elevation & reduction in chimney height Internal alterations to existing layout

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 October 2018 by Tobias Gethin BA (Hons), MSc, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C1760/D/18/3209276 The Cottage, Cow Lane, Kimpton SP11 8NY  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 Clare Norton against the decision of Test Valley Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00814/FULLN, dated 26 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 16 July 2018.  The development proposed is described as a 2 storey side extension to form enlarged entrance hall, utility room & cloakroom with en-suite bathroom over 1st floor rear extension to form new master bedroom removal of existing part thatched roof to front elevation & reduction in chimney height Internal alterations to existing layout. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension to form enlarged entrance hall, utility room and cloakroom with en- suite bathroom over and first floor rear extension to form bedroom, removal of existing part thatched roof and reduction in chimney height at The Cottage, Cow Lane, Kimpton SP11 8NY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/00814/FULLN, dated 26 March 2018, subject to the following 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: 873/02 B. Procedural matters 2. The Council’s decision notice describes the appeal proposal as a two storey side extension to form enlarged entrance hall, utility room and cloakroom with en- suite bathroom over and first floor rear extension to form bedroom, removal of existing part thatched roof and reduction in chimney height. This revised description of development more accurately describes the proposal. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis. 3. The Council’s decision notice was issued prior to publication of the new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, the Council’s decision notice does not allege conflict with the Framework and only refers to it in the ‘notes to applicant section’ in relation to the Council taking a proactive and solution based approach. I am therefore satisfied that it is not necessary for Appeal Decision APP/C1760/D/18/3209276 2 the parties to be consulted on the amended Framework (which in any event encourages a similar approach). Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of Afon, with particular regard to overlooking and outlook. Reasons 5. The appeal site contains a semi-detached building known as The Cottage. Located to the south-east of the appeal site, is a detached dwelling known as Afon, which has windows to the front and rear. To the front, there is an off- street parking area used by both properties. To the rear, there is a tall fence and a large tree on the boundary, and a shed at the end of the appeal site’s garden. Given the properties’ staggered positions, the boundary treatment and the appeal site’s limited fenestration at first-floor level, there is currently very limited overlooking from the appeal site towards Afon. 6. While the proposal would reduce the host property’s overall ridge height, the side extension would introduce additional height close to the corner of Afon and adjacent to the front parking area. However, with a similar footprint as the existing side projection, it would not be located on the boundary and would be relatively well separated from Afon. The roof design would also mitigate the effect of the extension’s additional height. I am satisfied that the proposal would therefore not have a significant effect on the outlook of Afon’s closest ground-floor window or from the front parking area. 7. While the side extension’s additional height would bring built form closer to Afon’s closest first-floor window (which serves a single-aspect bedroom), the proposal’s roof design would ensure that sufficient separation would be maintained and the side extension would not appear overly dominant from this window. This window also faces north-east towards Cow Lane rather than the appeal site. I am therefore satisfied that the side extension would not result in a significant and unacceptable sense of overbearing or loss of outlook for the occupants of Afon. Given the properties’ orientations and staggered positions, there would also not be a significant effect on light levels to Afon’s windows. The proposal’s rooflights would also not lead to significant levels of overlooking given they would not serve a habitable room. 8. Above the existing ground-floor bedroom, the first-floor rear extension would be sufficiently separated to avoid it appearing overbearing from Afon. It would therefore not significantly affect Afon’s outlook and views. However, it was apparent to me at my site visit that the new bedroom window would involve a view over part of Afon’s garden, including close to one end of the rear patio and the main sitting out area. 9. The actual level of overlooking would, however, be limited. This is because of the properties’ orientations and staggered positions, the boundary fence, the large tree at the end of the appeal site’s garden and the proposal’s design, including eaves overhanging the window. As indicated by the appellant’s sight lines, the window’s view would also be limited to the western/south-western part of Afon’s rear garden, with the remainder not being visible from the appeal site. This is also a residential area with several dwellings located in relatively close proximity. As such, a certain degree of mutual overlooking would not be Appeal Decision APP/C1760/D/18/3209276 3 unusual. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not introduce an unreasonable level of overlooking to Afon. The proposed new tree, as shown on drawing 873/02 B, would help to reduce any perception of overlooking. However, for the reasons above, the tree is not necessary to make the development acceptable. A separate condition securing details of the tree is therefore unnecessary. 10. I recognise that there are other properties nearby, and that neighbours have raised concerns about the proposal affecting their living conditions. However, given separation distances, the proposal’s design, existing trees/soft landscaping and boundary treatments, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in overshadowing or a material loss of privacy, outlook, views or daylight/sunlight to neighbours, including at Cobweb Cottage and Rustlets. 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of Afon. I therefore find that the proposal accords with Policy LHW4 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (2016), which requires developments to provide for the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties and not reduce daylight/sunlight to unacceptable levels. The proposal also accords with the Framework. Other matters 12. Although the thatched roof is attractive, the host property has a varied and rather altered appearance, and is not identified as a designated heritage asset, nor is it located within or in close proximity to one. The proposal would be a suitable scale and would utilise appropriate materials. I am therefore satisfied that it would not harm the character and appearance of the area. 13. Given the proposal’s scale and that the existing parking area would remain, the site’s parking provision would be sufficient. The bat report and Natural England’s response indicate the proposal would not harm wildlife. I am satisfied that there is sufficient space within the site for construction purposes. Construction works would also be temporary and any effect on neighbours would therefore be limited. I am therefore satisfied that a condition covering construction logistics is unnecessary. A condition requiring the removal of the flue (as set out in the Council’s Officer Report) is also unnecessary because the approved plan clearly shows that the protruding flue would be removed as part of the proposal. 14. I recognise neighbours’ concerns and comments, and note the petition supporting the Parish Council’s comments. However, as set out above, I have considered the points raised and this does not lead me to a different conclusion. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions covering timescales and specifying the approved plans, in the interests of certainty and the character and appearance of the area. Tobias Gethin INSPECTOR