Demolition of existing rear extension and erection of two storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 March 2019 by J Ayres BA Hons, Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Y9507/D/18/3218648 Wood End, London Road, Arundel, West Sussex BN18 0HG • 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 N Dewick against the decision of South Downs National Park Authority. • The application Ref SDNP/18/02788/HOUS, dated 15 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 30 October 2018. • The development proposed is demolition of existing rear extension and erection of two storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I have taken the description of the development from the Council’s decision notice. Whilst it differs from that on the application form it accurately and concisely describes the proposal. 3. The South Downs National Park Local Plan 2018 (SDNPLP) is in the process of being examined. I have had regard to the policies in that plan as far as they are relevant, however as the plan is yet to be adopted I have not attached full weight to the policies referred to. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and whether the proposal would retain the supply of small and medium sized homes in the area. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal property is one of a number of dwellings which forms a ribbon of development along the A29, it is a modest bungalow set within a long, relatively narrow plot. 6. The two storey element of the proposal would extend the building considerably. It would not only extend to the built form to the rear, but the mass of the extension would be wider than the host dwelling and would be visible on either side when looking at the front of the dwelling. As a result the width and overall Appeal Decision APP/Y9507/D/18/3218648 2 scale would engulf the currently modest dwelling. Whilst the dormers to the front would be in keeping with dormer features elsewhere in the area, the cumulative impact of the proposal would be to swallow the host dwelling and it would be an incongruous and overly dominant addition to the property. 7. Furthermore, the side elevations would be some 16 metres in length which is a significant addition to the property. There would be a distinct lack of design features on these elevations and as a result the extension would resemble a bland and imposing tunnel like development which would be detrimental to the host dwelling and the character of the street scene. 8. A large proportion of the rear elevation would be glazed, and five rooflights would also serve the new accommodation. The dwelling is in a Dark Night Skies Reserve. The emerging SDNPLP assesses the impact of external lighting and the light spill of internal lighting on these areas and advises that light spill should be minimalised through design or appropriate mitigation, this supports the general aim of the saved policies of the Arun District Local Plan. A glazing feature of the scale proposed would result in light spill that would have a detrimental impact on the Dark Night Skies Reserve due to the level of internal lighting, and this would be exasperated due to the area to the immediate rear of the dwelling being noticeably absent of trees or vegetation. Whilst it may be possible to incorporate blinds these details have not been put before me. 9. There are examples of other glazed aspects on properties, and my attention has been drawn to a conservatory on a nearby property. I do not have the full details with regards to the permission of that conservatory, and in any event each proposal must be considered on its own merits, and I have found that the appeal scheme before me would result in a level of light spill that would be harmful. 10. Whilst there is existing light pollution from sources such as vehicles along this road, the development plan seeks to reduce harm caused by development. The level of glazing proposed on this scheme would result in a significant level of light spillage of a permanent and fixed nature which would be different to the intermittent spillage caused through travelling vehicles. 11. There are examples of other rear extensions in the area, however even using the dwellings on either side of the appeal site as a comparison the rear elevations of those properties are clearly subservient to the main bulk of the respective dwelling. In contrast the scale of the proposal before me would be all encompassing and fail to respect or acknowledge the original property. I have considered the appeal referred to by the appellant at 6 Meadsway1, the Inspector in that scheme emphasised that the proposal would reinforce the character of the host dwelling. The proposal before me is fundamentally different in that it would completely dominate the host dwelling in an overbearing and harmful manner. 12. I find that the overall scale, mass and design of the proposal to be overly dominant and incongruous in its relationship to the host dwelling. It would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and conflict with Policies GEN7, DEV19 and GEN33 of the Arun District Local Plan which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that extensions are integrated with and 1 APP/Y9507/D/17/3178374 Appeal Decision APP/Y9507/D/18/3218648 3 visually subservient to the host dwelling, and that development avoids harmful light spillage. 13. The proposal would also conflict with Policies SD4 and SD5 of the emerging SDNPLP which collectively seek to ensure development responds positively to the character of an area, and Policy SD8 of the emerging SDNPLP which seeks to conserve the intrinsic quality of dark skies. However I attach limited weight to the application of these policies as the SDNPLP has not yet been formally adopted. The supply of small and medium sized homes 14. Policy SD27 of the SDNPLP seeks to retain a mix of homes (including the supply of small and medium sized dwellings) within the national park. Policy SD31 supports policy SD27 by advising that extensions should not seek to increase the floorspace of the original dwelling (as existing on 18 December 2002) by more than 30%. The Council asserts that the extension would result in a 164% increase in floorspace which would be in conflict with the SDNPLP. 15. The proposal would result in an additional three bedrooms being added to the property. This would result in a significant, four bedroom dwelling, and the increase would in principle conflict with the aims of the emerging SDNPLP. However, as the plan is yet to be adopted I do not consider that this in itself would warrant the dismissal of the appeal. Other matters 16. The appellant is seeking to increase the size of the property to facilitate their growing family. It is important for residents to be able to adapt their properties to suit their needs where appropriate. However, the scale and size of this particular scheme would be detrimental to the host property and wider character of the area. As such the personal circumstances of the appellant do not outweigh the harm identified. Conclusion 17. The proposal would conflict with the development plan and national policy. There are no other material considerations that would outweigh the conflict identified. Accordingly, for the reasons above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Ayres INSPECTOR