Alteration of existing bungalow to provide first-floor bedrooms under a new roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 December 2018 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20th December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/D/18/3210749 St Francis, 122 Blackboy Lane, Fishbourne, PO18 8BL  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 Miller against the decision of Chichester District Council.  The application Ref FB/18/00883/DOM, dated 6 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 16 July 2018.  The development proposed is the alteration of existing bungalow to provide first-floor bedrooms under a new roof. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the alteration of existing bungalow to provide first-floor bedrooms under a new roof at St Francis, 122 Blackboy Lane, Fishbourne, PO18 8BL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref FB/18/00883/DOM, dated 6 April 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drg Nos 1179_ 05A, 10, 11, 20, 21, 22 & 23. The Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is modest sized, detached bungalow of simple design with a pitched roof over and which spans most of the plot’s width. It is positioned within a run of properties, all of mixed size, age and appearance, and set within a wider residential area. 4. The proposal would remodel the appearance of the dwelling, adding accommodation at first floor level. The new roof would be half-hipped at one Appeal Decision APP/L3815/D/18/3210749 2 end over a two-storey height part of the elevation, with a full hip to the other extending down to a low eaves height to the side as a ‘cat-slide’ roof, which would also wrap around part of the front elevation to create an open sided veranda. 5. The Council is concerned that the revised appearance of the dwelling would appear unbalanced and incongruous in its setting, exaggerated further by a perceived proliferation of window openings to the principal elevation. 6. The form of the dwelling would be unusual. However, an asymmetrical building does not automatically equate to poor design. The size and bulk of the structure would be appropriately in scale with the residential context of its setting and in my view the roof form would purposefully address the floor-plan of the building in a well-considered manner. The dwelling would have an interesting presence but would not appear incongruous within the mixed character of the street scene where there is a notable absence of any regimentation or uniformity to the architecture. 7. Despite a suggestion by the Council to the contrary, the proposal does not include any dormer windows within the new roof slopes. Four rooflights are proposed to the front, but these are not features alien to the area. Furthermore, they would by no means dominate and would reasonably function to provide natural daylight to the rooms they would serve. A tall window opening centrally positioned within the front elevation would serve a stair well and is merely a design feature that would not be out of place. The amount of window openings overall is not excessive, and neither would their form detract from the residential character of the building. 8. My overall impression is that, although the appearance of the existing dwelling would dramatically change, the proposal would make a positive contribution to the mixed character and appearance of the street scene. As such, I find no conflict with Policy 33 of the Chichester Local Plan 2014-2029 (LP) which seeks, amongst other things, to achieve high standards of design in new residential development that is in-keeping with and respectful of the surrounding area. I can detect no conflict with the Council’s development strategy for the location of development, as given within LP Policy 2, and in the absence of any other conflict with the policies of the LP the proposal would be supported by LP Policy 1 as a sustainable form of development. For these same reasons there would no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework. Conditions 9. A condition specifying the relevant drawings is necessary as this provides certainty. The Council has confirmed that the drawings that were listed on the decision notice were wrong. The condition that I have imposed reflects those drawings that were submitted as part of the application and which were considered by the Council. 10. The Council has suggested a condition that would require the external materials to match the existing. However, the application proposed alternative materials for the walls and an entirely new roof. The use of concrete roof tiles would reflect those on the existing building and are appropriate to the locality as would the use of render and timber cladding for the walls. No further control by way of condition is necessary. Appeal Decision APP/L3815/D/18/3210749 3 Conclusion 11. For the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Accordingly, in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR