Side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 February 2019 by J Alderman BA(Hons) MA MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:9 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M3835/D/18/3217991 7 Douglas Close, West Worthing, Worthing BN11 5LF • 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 Shaun Tester against the decision of Worthing Borough Council. • The application Ref AWDM/1503/18 dated 28 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 22 November 2018. • The development proposed is a side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I have taken the address and description of the development from the planning application form, however I note these are expressed differently in other documents. 3. I note that the Framework was revised in February 2019, I have had regard to the latest version in reaching my decision. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 5. Douglas Close is a cul-de-sac with a horseshoe shaped turnaround at the end. It comprises fairly uniform semi-detached, well spaced two storey houses, with bay frontages. Some properties have garages which are set back towards the rear of the properties. A number of properties have skylights and alterations that suggest loft extensions. The gable roofs are a distinctive pyramid feature and a prominent and distinctive characteristic of the properties. There are no obvious side extensions within Douglas Close. 6. The appeal site is situated at the end of the cul-de-sac in the cluster of dwellings around the horseshoe. It is on the left hand of the pair of semi- detached properties when viewed from the street. It is very much in keeping with the neighbouring properties in the close. It has parking at the front of the house and it does not have a garage. Due to the horseshoe layout 7 Douglas Close is closer to its neighbour, 6 Douglas Close (in the adjoining pair of semi- Appeal Decision APP/M3835/D/18/3217991 2 detached properties), than other properties in the street. The side of the property, where the extension is proposed is narrower at the front, widens and then tapers in towards the rear of the property. This area is currently occupied by a number of sheds. 7. The proposed extension would comprise a single and two storey extension. The single storey element would be a store at the narrow part of the plot at the front and would have a sloping roof. The two storey extension would be further back with a pitched roof set below the main roof line. This would sit close to the boundary with 6 Douglas close, due to the limited space available to accommodate the requirements for the extension. It would be particularly tight to the boundary at the corner of the front single storey element. 8. The siting of the extension at the side of the existing property at 7 Douglas Close would mean that it would be visible from Douglas Close. The sloping roof on the single storey extension and its location positioned close to the front building line gives it a prominence that would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding properties. The limited space and tightness against the side boundary of the extension would create a cramped appearance, providing the impression of an infill between the appeal site and the neighbouring property when viewed from Douglas Close. The change to the roof line, although it is noted that it is lower than the main roof, would introduce a pitched roof form that is not currently prevalent in the vicinity of the property. Due to the prominence of the extension it would dominate the host dwelling and would therefore be detrimental to the street scene and would cause harm to the host property. 9. The proposed development fails to comply with Policy CS16 of the Worthing Borough Council Core Strategy which requires that new development should respond positively to the local character. It does not comply with saved Policy H16 of the Worthing Local Plan which requires “good quality architecture” and extensions through their scale and design to be satisfactory to existing properties. In addition this policy states that a proposed development should not adversely affect the appearance of the street-scene by occupying space between buildings which should remain open. Finally it does not align with the requirements set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Extending or altering your home”, which states that designing side extensions up to the boundary should be avoided. Other Matters 10. I have considered whether the appeal proposal would be consistent with the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, as set out in paragraph 8 of the Framework. I have found that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, placing it in conflict with the environmental dimension of paragraph 8. Whilst the development would add to the vitality of the local community and economy and add to the mix of housing type within the Borough, these benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the environmental harm that I have identified above. Furthermore, having considered all of the policies drawn to my attention the visual harm arising from the development leads me to conclude that there is conflict with the development plan as a whole and I find the scheme is not sustainable development. Appeal Decision APP/M3835/D/18/3217991 3 11. The appellant has pointed to the proposed development providing effective use of the area at the side of the property which is currently described as “redundant space”. However, this does not provide justification for the development when weighed against the harm caused. 12. It is noted by the appellant that no objections were received from neighbours to the proposed development. However, this decision is concerned not only with the effect on the living conditions of the current occupants of surrounding dwellings but also future occupants. Conclusion 13. Overall, I find that the harm caused by the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. For the reasons given above I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Alderman INSPECTOR