First storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 February 2019 by Eleni Randle BSc (hons) MSc FRICS FAAV MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/X0415/D/18/3217685 4 The Farthings, Chesham Bois, HP6 6XJ  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 Paul Moss against the decision of Chiltern District Council.  The application Ref PL/18/3276/FA, dated 3 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 November 2018.  The development proposed is a first storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The properties on The Farthings generally fill the width of their plots. A number of the properties have single storey garages which take them up to the boundaries. The space between the properties, provided by the distance between the first-floor elevations in most cases, contributes to the character of the area by setting the properties away from the side boundaries and each other, although the spacing between the properties is varied. 4. The proposal would be on the footprint of the existing property however, it would result in two storey accommodation being very close to the property boundary. Overall, this would reduce the visual gap currently present between the application site and the adjoining property. 5. As a result, the extension would reduce the spacious character between the properties. Given that the adjoining property, 3 The Farthings, is semi- detached, I place significant weight on retention of the space between Nos 3 and 4 as part of the street scene. This is to maintain the varying degrees of separation between the buildings as currently seen along The Farthings. 6. The appellant’s statement of case contains photographs stated to be relative designs throughout the street and discusses the relationship of Nos 9, 10 and 11. I, however, consider that the properties referred to form a separate character to the rest of the street scene and thus the weight attributed to the comparison is limited. 7. The adopted Residential Extensions and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that extensions should Appeal Decision APP/X0415/D/18/3217685 2 consider the impact of development on street scene. Where buildings are in a definable visual row the first floor of an extension should be set in from the boundary. Regardless of the distances recommended in the SPD the guidance seeks to prevent visual coalescing between buildings or an uncharacteristic terracing effect 8. Not only would the reduction in the spacing between properties harm the character of the area, but visually it would present as a cramped development and an awkward addition to the street scene when considering the overall appearance. 9. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District, which requires new development to contribute to local distinctiveness, as well as Policies GC1, H13 H15 and H16 of the Chiltern District Local Plan. These latter policies together seek a high standard of development, including in relationships to its site, adjacent buildings and the street scene. Furthermore, Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages good design stating that permission should be refused where design fails to consider any local design standards or supplementary planning documents. Other Matters 10. I note the appellant’s inclusion of the decision for appeal reference APP/X0415/D/17/3173117 (the Acorns appeal) as well as plans relating to that site. In the Acorns appeal the appellant argued, and the Inspector gave weight to, the fact that the absence of a uniform development pattern and the variety of house designs would further diminish the likelihood of visual coalescence. The Acorn appeal site also benefitted from a mature oak tree in the front garden which the Inspector acknowledged as screening with properties being staggered in nature. 11. The properties on The Farthings are quite uniform in pattern, in a linear format, and appearance; the appellant acknowledges that they exhibit the same architecture with subtle differences to detailed design and arrangement. They are, therefore, not as varied as those considered within the Acorns appeal. 12. The Inspector, in the Acorns decision, felt that the merits of the proposal outweighed the drawbacks especially with the substantial improvement in the living accommodation. I do not find that the same balance can be shown here. 13. Each site must be considered on its merits. I find that there are differences between the sites which make them incomparable and I therefore attribute little weight to the Acorns decision in the determination of this appeal. Conclusion 14. For the reasons outlined above, and taking account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Eleni Randle INSPECTOR