To retain part two part single storey rear extension (Revised application to 17-11515)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 October 2018 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16th November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B1740/D/18/3210107 61 South Street, Hythe, SO45 6EA.  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 Danny Wells against the decision of the New Forest District Council.  The application Ref 18/10594, dated 30 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 11 July 2018.  The development proposed is to retain part two part single storey rear extension (Revised application to 17-11515). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby whether it would serve to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Hythe Conservation Area. Procedural Matters 3. The appellant has submitted a revised scheme incorporating a hipped roof. This would be in lieu of the current gable end design. To my mind, this change would result in a scheme that is different in substance to that determined by the Council. Moreover, the Council appears not to have considered these amended plans nor has it consulted others on them. Consequently, interested parties could be prejudiced if I were to consider these revised proposals. Therefore, in the interests of fairness, I have not done so. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans that accompanied the application. Reasons 4. The property the subject of this appeal, 61 South Street, is an end of terrace two-storey one bedroom dwelling. It is located in the Hythe Conservation Area. It is finished externally in painted brickwork with a slate roof. 5. The appellant has built a part single storey and part two-storey extension to the rear of the existing property. The extension as built is a simple elongation of the existing house, being the same width and maintaining the established ridge and eaves heights. Although the first floor is currently clad in timber Appeal Decision APP/B1740/D/18/3210107 2 boarding, it is proposed to replace this with painted render and then to paint the face brickwork at ground floor level white to match the adjacent brickwork finish. 6. The extension of the property, save for the proposed changes to the external finishes, was the subject of an earlier appeal (Ref: APP/B1740/D/18/3198197). The Inspector who determined that appeal found that the ground floor addition in itself, due to its limited visual impact in the context of the visual dominance of the rear and flank elements of Holly Cottage, would not be harmful. From what I have seen and read I find no reason to reach a contrary view. 7. Further, and while it would be for the Council to consider the design of any proposal for a stand alone single storey rear extension in the first instance, given its single storey form I do not consider that such an extension need necessarily impact unduly on any proposal to extend the first floor and roof of the dwelling as suggested by the appellant. 8. In contrast, the further extension at first floor level would in my judgement, when considered cumulatively with the previous extension built in the 1950’s, significantly detract from the modest proportions of the original Victorian cottage. Further, the gable ended design proposed serves to exacerbate the extension’s visual dominance 9. The appellant argues that the proposed extension would be subordinate to the original dwelling and that it would be no higher than the existing dwelling. While it would clearly be no higher and the extension may be considered subordinate to the dwelling as extended, I do not agree that it would be subordinate to the original dwelling due to the cumulative effect of its increase in length. 10. The existing house is finished externally in painted brickwork. Following the removal of the existing timber cladding, the appellant proposes that the walls of the first floor addition should be rendered and painted white. While some contrast in materials might well reduce the apparent visual length of the house as extended and clearly define the later addition, the proposed painted render, although less likely to draw the eye than the existing boarding, would in my experience appear as just as an unattractive applied alien finish in this context. This in turn would cause further harm to the character and appearance of the building and the wider area. 11. To allow the proposed extension in the context of the surrounding properties would, despite limited public views, be to the detriment of the street scene and would not serve to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. 12. In my judgement the proposed addition, even if the roof were changed to a hipped roof design, would cause harm to the character and appearance of the current cottage and the terrace due to the increase in length. Accordingly, therefore, even if I had taken the proposed change in the roof design into account, it would not have altered my decision. 13. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, which include conservation areas. It draws a distinction between substantial harm and less than substantial harm to such an asset. For the latter, which applies here, the Appeal Decision APP/B1740/D/18/3210107 3 test is that the harm should be weighed against public benefits, including securing the optimum viable use. 14. The proposed extension would provide some limited economic benefit. However, given the harm that has been identified I conclude that the public benefits would not outweigh this harm. The development would therefore conflict with the objectives of Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Framework and Policies CS2 and CS3 of the New Forest District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy – New Forest outside the National Park (Adopted October 2009), Policy DM1 of the New Forest District Council Local Development Framework Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management Development - New Forest outside the National Park (Adopted April 2014) and the New Forest District Council Hythe - A Conservation Area Appraisal - Supplementary Planning Guidance (June 2004) as they relate to the quality of development and the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of conservation areas. Other matters 15. The appellant has drawn my attention to other similar developments nearby. Some of these I understand were approved before the conservation area boundary was extended and others subsequent to that change. Whatever the background to those cases, their existence is not an appropriate justification for permitting the extension here, which I have considered on its individual planning merits. Conclusions 16. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the lack of any objection to the proposal from either the Parish Council or third parties, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR