Two-storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 February 2019 by J L Cheesley BA(Hons) DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:15 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/D/18/3218840 8 The Wayback, Saffron Walden, Essex CB10 2AX • 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 Ian Sims against the decision of Uttlesford District Council. • The application Ref UTT/18/2170/HHF was refused by notice dated 1 October 2018. • The development proposed is a two-storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. I consider the main issues to be: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the original dwelling and surrounding streetscene; and the effect of the loss of parking provision on highway safety. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. Saved Policy H8 in the Uttlesford Local Plan (2005) permits house extensions if, amongst other matters, their scale and design respects those of the original building. 4. The appeal property lies within a primarily residential area of predominately modern development of dwellings on a prominent corner location. Whilst there are properties of various designs in the vicinity, the appeal property lies within a distinct group of dwellings with either semi-detached dwellings with original pitched roofs or detached gable end properties. 5. The appeal property has been extended with a rear conservatory and a two- storey side extension. The proposal is for a two-storey side extension on the other side to include a mobility scooter area on the ground floor with a lift to a disabled living area on the first floor. It would be set back from the main front elevation and set down from the main ridge. Appeal Decision APP/C1570/D/18/3218840 2 6. From my observations, I consider that the scale of the cumulative additions of the existing extensions together with the proposed addition would overwhelm the design and scale of the original dwelling. This would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the original dwelling and surrounding streetscene. This would not be in accordance with saved Local Plan Policy H8. 7. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. I note the need for a covered area for a mobility scooter and the need for a disabled living area and wet room. It does not follow from the PSED that the appeal should succeed. I have seen for myself the existing internal layout of the dwelling and in particular the configuration of the staircase. I do not consider the proposal before me to be the only way to satisfy the requirements, which could be met by a much smaller covered area for a mobility scooter and adaptation of the existing internal living areas. 8. In reaching my conclusion on this matter, I have taken into consideration all matters raised, including examples of extensions to other dwellings nearby. These are not directly comparable to the proposal before me, which I have determined on its individual merits. I conclude on this matter that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the original dwelling and streetscene. Thus the proposal would be contrary to guidance in Uttlesford District Council’s Supplementary Planning Document - Home Extensions (2005) and contrary to saved Local Plan Policies GEN2 and H8, particularly where they seek to ensure extensions are compatible with the original dwelling. I consider these saved Local Plan policies to be broadly in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly where the Framework seeks to ensure good design. Parking Provision 9. The proposed ground floor room would be situated on part of the existing driveway. Due to the presence of an existing side boundary hedge making it a narrow driveway down the side of the dwelling, and the position of the main side door to the property, the use of this part of the driveway for the parking of all but very small vehicles is currently limited. 10. There is no restriction on parking in the surrounding streets and the proposal would still enable there to be some on-site parking. In these circumstances and particularly as there is limited ability to currently park on the area proposed for the ground floor room, I do not consider that the proposal would adversely affect highway safety in the surrounding area. Thus, the proposal would be in accordance with saved Local Plan Policy GEN8 and the Uttlesford Local Parking Standards (February 2013), where they seek to ensure appropriate parking provision. I consider saved Local Plan Policy GEN8 together with the residential parking standards are broadly in accordance with parking policy outlined in the Framework. Conclusion 11. I have found that the proposed parking provision would not have an adverse effect on highway safety, but have found that the cumulative additions would Appeal Decision APP/C1570/D/18/3218840 3 have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the original dwelling and surrounding streetscene. This would be so significant that even taking into consideration PSED, I dismiss the appeal. J L Cheesley INSPECTOR