For two storey side and rear extensions together with a loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 April 2019 by Helen O'Connor LLB MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/G1630/D/18/3219409 5 Greenways, Winchcombe, Cheltenham GL54 5LQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Olliffe against Tewkesbury Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/00796/FUL, is dated 6 August 2018. • The development proposed is for two storey side and rear extensions together with a loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for the two storey side and rear extensions together with a loft conversion is refused. Main Issues 2. The Council submitted a delegated report after the submission of the appeal against non-determination which sets out what would have constituted the reasons for refusal had they been in a position to determine the application. On this basis the main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the area, and; • The landscape character of the wider area, and; • The living conditions of nearby residents, with particular reference to privacy and light. Reasons Character and appearance 3. Greenways Road comprises predominantly of single and two storey post war detached dwellings with open frontages. Whilst there is some variation in the house type and detailing there is a regularity in the spacing of dwellings and materials used. When taken with the landscaping and garden planting this creates a pleasant and spacious street scene. 4. 5 Greenways is one such detached two storey property featuring a short gabled projection in the principal elevation similar to other houses in the street. It is mirrored with 7 Greenways such that they present a broadly symmetrical pair. In addition, it is located on a corner plot and together with 3 Greenways Appeal Decision APP/G1630/D/18/3219409 2 presents a further generally symmetrical pair flanking the entrance to Wincel Road. 5. The proposal would introduce a number of extensions to the dwelling. The most significant of these is to the front elevation comprising a longer two-storey gable projection over the existing flat roof extension. This would result in two gables of differing lengths that would unbalance the symmetrical appearance and proportions of the dwelling in the street scene in relation to Nos.3 and 7. The extension would adversely dominate the principal elevation given the open frontage and prominence of the corner plot. 6. In addition, extensions and a dormer window would be introduced to the rear extending across the full width of the house resulting in a notable increase in the massing of the building overall with an awkward interface between the dormer and two storey extension. Although, the alterations to the rear would not be as prominent in the street scene as the front elevation, given its corner location, glimpses of the side and dormer extension would be visible in public views, as well as seen from nearby houses. When taken together, the cumulative alterations would have a harmful impact on the appearance of the dwelling and the wider street scene. 7. I accept the site is not within a conservation area, and the materials would be similar. However, the development would result in a built form that does not sufficiently respect the characteristics of the local context and would be harmful to them. As such, I do not accept that building over the existing flat roofed extension at the front would enhance the appearance of the dwelling. Furthermore, whilst the crab apple tree and greengage tree may assist with some partial screening, they would not sufficiently address the harm identified. 8. Reference is made to a number of examples of other extensions mostly in Greenways, but also in Greet Road. I am not aware of all the circumstances that related to the extension referred to at 36 Greet Road. However, given its location at the rear of the property some distance from the appeal site it would not be viewed in the same street scene context, and therefore is not comparable. 9. The front extensions at 11, 17 and 24 Greenways relate to different house types. In those cases, the original house is a single gable fronted property, as such, the extensions did not result in a double gabled property. The extension at 19 Greenways similarly did not result in a double gabled property. 37 Greenways is a different house type again, however the extension there serves to illustrate how an overly prominent front extension detracts from the general character of the area. 10. 3, 6, 8 and 19 Greenways also have loft conversions and/or at least 2 storey rear extensions. Of these, the rear extensions and loft conversions at 6 and 8, are not as easily seen from public vantage points. Those at Nos.3 and 19 are different from the appeal proposal in that they do not incorporate a large rear dormer window. As such, all of the examples referred to are materially different to the proposal, and therefore attract limited weight. In any event, I have considered the appeal on its own merits. 11. The appellant suggests that much of the development would fall within permitted development rights. However, I have seen little evidence to support this assertion. Even if individual elements were to fall within permitted Appeal Decision APP/G1630/D/18/3219409 3 development, I have assessed the proposal before me on its own merits against the relevant development plan policy. Therefore, this does not surmount the harm I have identified. 12. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I find that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area contrary to policy SD4 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031, 2017 (CS) and saved policy HOU8 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011, 2006 (TBLP) which, amongst other matters, require new development to respond positively and respect the character of the site and its surroundings. In addition, the proposal would conflict with policies 5.1 and 5.5 of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2031, 2017 (NP), which include criteria that the design of new development should complement and enhance its surroundings with extensions remaining subservient. Landscape Character 13. The Council have suggested that there would be harm caused to a Special Landscape Area (SLA) as designated in the TBLP. The SLA aims to protect the visual attractiveness of the area, its wildlife, ecology and the ability of people to enjoy the quietness of the countryside. However, based on the evidence presented it is not shown how the proposal would have a wider impact on the significance of the landscape character, nor which characteristics of the SLA would be affected. Given the predominantly residential context of Greenways, with surrounding cultivated gardens, the development is unlikely to have an impact on, or be conspicuous within a wider landscape such that the aims of the SLA would be affected. 14. Therefore, I do not find that the proposal would conflict with saved policy LND2 of the TBLP which requires development proposals to accord special attention to the protection and enhancement of the landscape character of the SLA. Living conditions 15. The proposal would introduce three windows serving a bedroom and en-suite bathroom in the rear dormer window. This would to a certain degree permit overlooking of rear residential gardens to those properties sited to the south- east. However, the situation would not be significantly different from the overlooking possible from the existing windows in the first floor rear elevation. When taken together with the intervening distance, and orientation of the respective properties, this is unlikely to unacceptably diminish the privacy enjoyed by the occupants at 23 and 25 Greenways and would not affect the existing relationship with their garden. 16. 7 Greenways is located north east of No.5 but is broadly aligned with it. As such, the depth of the rear extensions would not be so significant to unacceptably reduce light to the rear elevation at No.7. The front extension would increase the height of an existing single storey extension, and as it would be over 3 metres in length it would be likely to reduce light levels to the front elevation of No.7 in the afternoon and evening. The garage door of No 7 is located at ground floor level at the nearest point, which would reduce the effect. Moreover, recognising the degree of separation between the properties, and generally open aspect of No.7, the impact would be unlikely to amount to an unreasonable harm to living conditions overall. Appeal Decision APP/G1630/D/18/3219409 4 17. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with policy SD4 of the CS and saved policy HOU8 of the TBLP which, amongst other matters, seek to avoid visual intrusion and safeguard the living conditions of nearby occupiers. Furthermore, it would not be contrary to policy 5.1 of the NP which includes an objective that new development should not unduly impact on neighbouring occupants due to overlooking or loss of light. Other matters 18. The proposal would provide accommodation for family members of the appellant that may experience mobility issues and have care requirements. Nevertheless, such benefits are likely to change as the personal circumstances of the occupants alter over time, whereas the harm to the character and appearance of the area would remain. As such, this benefit does not outweigh the harm identified in relation to the character and appearance of the area. 19. The development would provide sufficient off-street parking, however that would be required in any event to fulfil other development plan policies, and so this matter attracts no weight. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above I conclude that due to the harm to the character and appearance of the area the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission refused. Helen O’Connor Inspector