Erection of a single storey side extension with a window on the front elevation. The erection of a single storey side extension which includes a new roof on existing conservatory with the installation of a skylight, new windows and single door

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 November 2018 by Penelope Metcalfe BA(Hons) MSc DipUP DipDBE MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20th November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/E0345/D/18/3212433 300 The Meadway, Tilehurst, Reading, RG30 4PB • 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 Bhroma Patel against the decision of Reading Borough Council. • The application Ref 181086, dated 20 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 August 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a single storey side extension with a window on the front elevation. The erection of a single storey side extension which includes a new roof on existing conservatory with the installation of a skylight, new windows and single door. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The application form is inaccurate in that it refers to a single storey extension with a window on the front elevation. This was subsequently altered to refer more accurately to a front extension. The proposal is described on the decision notice as single storey front, side and rear extension. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the latter description. 4. The appellant submitted several plans showing variations of the proposal during consideration of the proposal by the Council. The decision was based on the site location and block plan, the proposed floor and roof plans and the proposed elevations dated and received by the Council on 13 August 2018. 5. The appeal property is a two storey semi detached house located on the corner of The Meadway and Corwen Road. It is in an established residential area of mixed house styles. Its curtilage includes a side garden adjacent to Corwen Road, the boundary with which is marked by a brick wall, an enclosed rear garden and a detached garage at the end of the rear garden fronting onto Corwen Road. There is a brick and tiled canopy across part of the front elevation, a small open porch over an entrance door in the side elevation and a single storey flat roofed extension across the width of the rear elevation. Appeal Decision APP/E0345/D/18/3212433 2 6. The relevant policies in this case include CS7 of the Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy adopted 2008 (the Core Strategy) and DM9 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document adopted 2012 (the SDPD). These require development to be of a high design quality which responds positively to the local context and house extensions to respect the character of the house and surroundings in terms of scale, location and design, among other things. 7. These policies and guidance are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (updated in 2018) (the Framework), insofar as they encourage development to be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character. 8. I consider that the proposed front extension would be modest in size and of a design which would be in keeping with the character of the house and would therefore be acceptable. 9. I consider that the proposed combination of the new side extension and its link to the rear extension would appear unduly bulky and awkward in design and out of scale with the original house. I note that the width of the side extension has been reduced from an earlier proposal. I consider that, in isolation, this would be acceptable, as there is ample space at the side of the house for it without intruding unacceptably into the building line along Corwen Road. 10. However, the house is located in a prominent position on a corner and I consider that overall, the wraparound link between the side section and the existing rear extension would introduce an intrusive element which would be out of proportion with the house and out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area. 11. There are several properties in the area with hipped roof extensions to the front or side which better reflect the scale and design of the host buildings and the general character of the wider area. However, during my visit, I saw no properties with wraparound extensions of the style proposed. 12. I have taken account of the example put forward by the appellant of an extension and wrap around roof elsewhere in the area. On the basis of the information available, I find that that site is at some distance from the appeal property in an area where the design elements of the property itself and the surrounding properties are somewhat different. I do not consider that it provides an appropriate example to follow in this case. 13. I consider that the individual elements of the front and side extensions, the proposed roof over the side extension and the alteration to the roof of the rear extension are acceptable in themselves, but that the wraparound link is not. 14. I conclude that the proposal, by reason of its design, scale and bulk, would not respect the character of the house itself and the surrounding area. It would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Core Strategy policy CS7 and SDPD policy DM9. 15. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. PAG Metcalfe INSPECTOR