Retrospective planning application for the retention and modification of the existing porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 February 2019 by Zoe Raygen, Dip URP, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15th March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q3820/D/18/3217483 36 Swift Lane, Langley Green, Crawley, RH11 7RD • 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 Jonikas against the decision of Crawley Borough Council. • The application Ref: CR/2018/0627/FUL dated 20 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 October 2018. • The development is described as retrospective planning application for the retention and modification of the existing porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matter 2. During the course of the appeal the Government published the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (the Framework). I have not sought comments on the document as the wording of parts relevant to this appeal are not substantially altered from the 2018 version. Background and Main Issue 3. No. 36 Swift Gardens is an end terrace house which I saw at my site visit has a brick built front porch with a hipped roof. The porch was the subject of appeal decision APP/Q3820/C/17/3174289. While the Inspector did not rule out a front extension, they found that the design, particularly with regard to the roof and materials, created an incongruous, dominant front addition to the building. The appeal was therefore dismissed. 4. The appellant submitted a further planning application, which proposed changing the hipped tiled roof to a mono-pitched tiled roof and reducing its height by about 0.3 metres. In addition, according to the appellant’s application form, the materials would match the existing dwelling. The application was refused by the Council on grounds relating to the impact of the porch on the character and appearance of the area. 5. In that context the main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the adjoining terrace and the surrounding area. Appeal Decision APP/Q3820/D/18/3217483 2 Reasons 6. No. 36 Swift Gardens is an end terrace house located within a housing estate which is mostly formed by rows of simple terraces set back from the road with some uniformity of design. I saw that most properties have a modest canopy just above the front door which is either flat or has a very shallow pitch. Relatively open frontages allow views along the streets of the front elevations of the terraces. As a result, the front extension in its current form is highly prominent and dominant in the street scene in views from the south and west. 7. The size of the porch, although a large addition is similar to those on properties to the west of the appeal site on Swift Lane. However, while the roof form of the porch would change, the proposed mono pitched roof, while having roof tiles to match the host dwelling, would still be a dominant, incongruous feature in contrast to the prevailing existing form of simple doorway canopies. Although reduced in height, it would not be by a significant amount and would therefore still be located near to the sill level of the first floor window. Furthermore, while the porch would be rendered, the narrow windows and dark front door would be retained which would continue to appear discordant against the simple plain white elevation and fenestration of the host dwelling. Consequently, taking all these factors into account, the porch would not have a subservient appearance to the dwelling or the terrace, and would not relate sympathetically to its surroundings. 8. The appellant has referred to examples of other porches in the area. At my site visit I saw some properties have porch extensions with differing roof forms, including some that would be similar to the appeal proposal. However, there are not a sufficient number, particularly in the area immediately surrounding No. 36, to change the prevailing character and appearance formed by the simple form of the front elevation of the terraces. Furthermore, those that I did see served to reinforce my concerns regarding the harmful effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. 9. I appreciate that the size of the porch is only just above that which would be permitted development. However, the porch does require planning permission, and I have found it is the design of the porch as a whole which would be harmful. 10. I acknowledge that the area is not a designated Conservation Area and that there has been no objection to the development from local residents. However, the Framework and local Policy seeks to promote high quality design in all areas. I have found harm based on the requirements of these Policies and guidance. 11. I note that the Council state that it is not clear from the submitted plans that the porch would be rendered, or that roof tiles would match those on the host dwelling. Nevertheless, the application form clearly states the porch would be rendered and, in any case, this matter could have been the subject of a condition if the appeal were to be allowed. 12. For the reasons above I conclude that the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the adjoining terrace and the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to policies CH2 and CH3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030 adopted 2015, the guidance set out in the Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document 2016 and the Appeal Decision APP/Q3820/D/18/3217483 3 Framework. These require development of high-quality design which relates sympathetically to its surroundings and responds to and reinforces locally distinctive patterns of development. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Zoe Raygen INSPECTOR