For a two storey side, single storey rear and rear basement extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 February 2019 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/D1780/D/18/3217620 164 Manor Farm Road, Southampton SO18 1NX • 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 and Mrs Hill against the decision of Southampton City Council. • The application Ref 18/01337/FUL, dated 18 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 10 September 2018. • The development proposed is for a two storey side, single storey rear and rear basement extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and whether the proposed basement would be at risk from flooding. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal site is located within a predominantly residential area largely comprising detached and semi-detached two storey houses, the majority of which are also quite widely spaced apart. 4. The proposed two storey side extension, whilst of a modest footprint, would nonetheless erode the gap between the appeal dwelling and 162 Manor Farm Road. I accept that the application, in part, seeks to address the problem of access to the only bathroom within the property, although this to some degree is a case of form following function, and I am not convinced that this is the only possible method to create independent access to the bathroom facilities. Being in such close proximity to the neighbouring dwelling and notwithstanding the slight set-back from the main front elevation, I consider that the side extension would disrupt the visual rhythm of the street scene and would be detrimental to its character and appearance. 5. I note the advice that was given within the Pre-planning Report with regard to the two storey side extension, however, ultimately Officer advice can only be given informally and does not bind a local planning authority to making a Appeal Decision APP/D1780/D/18/3217620 2 particular decision at a later date. I also acknowledge that a two-storey side extension to 163 Manor Farm Road was granted planning permission in 2011 and 2012 although I have not been provided with detailed drawings of this, but in any event each case must be assessed on its own merits. 6. Paragraphs 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 of the Council’s Residential Design Guide 2006 (RDG) highlights that extensions to the side of a house should avoid creating a terracing effect, in areas characterised by semi or detached housing. It goes on to state that in traditional detached and semi-detached housing areas the infilling of the spaces between houses can detract from the character and rhythm of the street. Furthermore, the Guide goes on to state in such areas of housing a gap reflecting the prevailing urban grain must be retained between the extension and side boundary to ensure access to the rear of the property and for maintenance purposes. The proposal would clearly run counter to this guidance. 7. The proposal would also give rise to a number of flat roof elements, these would be contained at the rear, of limited height and similarly designed to the rear extensions on some neighbouring dwellings. The basement in particular would have a very limited impact on the character and appearance of the area as it would essentially provide a patio area and its protrusion above ground, i.e. the existing slope of the garden, would be minimal. These rear extensions would also have a limited effect upon the residential amenity of the occupants of adjoining residential properties. 8. Further, bearing in mind the limited impact that the proposal would have upon the scale of the host dwelling above ground level, I consider that the proposal would not represent an overdevelopment of the site, notwithstanding the erosion of the existing gap between nos 162 and 164. 9. I therefore consider that the proposed two storey side extension would have a detrimental impact upon the character of the street scene through the infilling of the existing gap between the appeal dwelling and no 162 such that its visual rhythm would be detrimentally eroded. I therefore find that in addition to being in conflict with the Residential Design Guide, the proposal also conflicts with Policies SDP7 and SDP9 of the Adopted City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015) (LPR) as well as Policy CS13 of the Adopted Core Strategy Partial Review (2015) which together require proposals to respond positively and integrate with its local surroundings whilst respecting the existing layout of buildings within the streetscape through taking into account, amongst other things, scale, massing and visual impact. Flood Risk 10. It is accepted by both parties that the site is not located within an area of high flood risk and whilst I accept that the basement may require tanking if the water table is at a high level, nonetheless these are matters that could be dealt with under the Building Regulations. The Council has not substantiated the second paragraph of its reason for refusal, but in any case I consider that if I had been so minded to have allowed the appeal, I could have required details of the extent of any engineering works required to form the basement area to be submitted by way of planning condition. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not give rise to conditions that would harm the safety of the Appeal Decision APP/D1780/D/18/3217620 3 future occupants of the appeal dwelling. Consequently, in this respect the proposal would comply with LPR Policy SDP1 as the development would not unacceptably affect the health or safety of the City and its citizens. Conclusion 11. Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed. C J Tivey INSPECTOR