Single storey front, side and rear extensions, addition of first floor to provide accommodation and front dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 November 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W1715/D/18/3211478 46 Common Road, Chandler’s Ford, Eastleigh, SO53 1HP  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 Roger Silson against the decision of Eastleigh Borough Council.  The application Ref H/18/83095, dated 1 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 July 2018.  The development proposed is single storey front, side and rear extensions, addition of first floor to provide accommodation and front dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey front, side and rear extensions, addition of first floor to provide accommodation and front dormer at 46 Common Road, Chandler’s Ford, Eastleigh, SO53 1HP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref H/18/83095, dated 1 May 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2196/04_02 & 2196/09_01_C. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on i) the character and appearance of the host property and the locality and ii) living conditions for neighbours. Reasons 3. The appeal property is an unadorned modest bungalow with a reasonable sized garden. It lies at the end of a row of 5 similar homes, alongside a two storey building, in a street which has a range dwelling types including houses and bungalows. The area is of residential character and the mixed suburban nature of the buildings and gardens create an area of generally pleasing appearance. The proposal is as described above and would lead to a home with considerable additional floorspace and a ‘modern edge’ to its design. Appeal Decision APP/W1715/D/18/3211478 2 Character and appearance 4. The Council is concerned that the planned works would be a visually intrusive extension, out of sync with the established character of the host dwelling, leading to a building that would be out of context and with the pattern of local development. 5. The extension works would certainly not be modest changes to a bungalow. Whilst one might normally seek a passing of the test of subservience and reflective design in this instance it is more accurate to think of this almost as a new dwelling and ask the question as to whether this re-modelling is suited to this locality. In terms of bulk and height to my mind it would be. I say this looking widely along the street but also viewing this plot as a potential transition between a bungalow to one side and a full two storey dwelling to the other. In terms of design I do not see any need for the appeal property to be set in aspic. Whilst there are 4 other bungalows matching down the row this one is undisruptive at the end of that line and is unremarkable in appearance and position. On the design front there are signs of change in the street and in a locality of such variety I see room for a property with a more modern design idiom than the majority. The development would be suited to its context, aesthetically appropriate, and not jarring on the eye. 6. Saved Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2001-2011 (LP) seeks to ensure, amongst other matters, that new development is of suitable mass, design, scale and siting for its immediate and wider context in character and appearance terms. This is reflected within the broad objectives of the Council’s The Quality Places SPD (2011) (SPD), a document which cannot be expected to cover every eventuality. For the reasons given above I conclude that there would not be conflict with the LP policy or the relevant objectives of the SPD. Living conditions 7. I would agree for the reasons given in the Council’s report that the residential amenity of neighbours to the rear and east of the appeal site would not appreciably diminished. 8. The Council is concerned with No 60 to the west which does have a relatively small outside amenity area and this does run alongside the appeal building which would undergo significant works along and above this flank. The Council sets out loss of privacy and outlook as its objections. 9. However the only windows facing this direction would be a ground floor WC, 2 high level roof lights for a utility room and roof lights above first floor level for stairs and a bathroom. These are not going to unduly impinge upon privacy. In terms of visual outlook it is clear that the new roof would be visible from No 60’s garden, more so than the existing situation, but it would be running upwards away from the boundary and in my opinion would not be oppressive given overall height, spacing and angles. People in the garden of No 60 would not suffer any great loss of outlook and should not feel hemmed-in or dominated by the new structure. 10. LP Saved Policy 59.BE also seeks to ensure that development would not have any undue adverse impact on adjoining properties. I conclude that this scheme would not run contrary to this policy or the pertinent objectives of the SPD. Appeal Decision APP/W1715/D/18/3211478 3 Conditions 11. The Council suggests the standard commencement condition along with the requirement for materials to match the existing building. I agree this latter condition would be appropriate in the interests of visual amenity. I also agree that there should be a condition that works are to be carried out in accordance with listed, approved, plans; to provide certainty. Overall conclusion 12. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality or on living conditions for neighbours. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. D Cramond INSPECTOR