Two-storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 April 2019 by E. Brownless, BA (Hons) Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/D/19/3219588 6 Wharf View, Buckingham, MK18 1XF • 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 Miss A Tether & Mr A King against the decision of Aylesbury Vale District Council. • The application Ref: 18/02828/APP dated 10 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 23 October 2018. • The development proposed is a two-storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed Procedural Matter 2. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was published on the 19 February 2019 and I have had regard to this in reaching my decision. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on i) character and appearance with particular regard to the host building and the street scene; and ii) the living conditions of the occupants of No. 7 Wharf View, with particular regard to outlook and light. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal dwelling is located within an urban cul-de-sac characterised by single and two-storey detached dwellings with open frontages. Albeit there is some variety in the layout of the dwellings, they are broadly of a similar scale and design. A number of dwellings include a single storey element projecting in front of the main build line of their dwelling. Whilst there is some evidence of alterations to these single storey elements, the alterations are modest and the dwellings retain a pleasantly uniform appearance. Two-storey extensions to the front of dwellings and hipped roofs are not commonplace within Wharf View. No. 6 shares these common characteristics and makes a positive contribution to the street scene. 5. Whilst the proposal would project no further forwards than the existing forward build line and it would include a similar eaves height and a ridge height reduced from that of the host building, the proposal would extend, by an additional 1.2 metres approximately, across more than half of the existing two- Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/19/3219588 2 storey frontage of the host dwelling. Together with its two-storey height and the inclusion of a hipped roof, the proposed development, by reason of its significant height, scale, mass and design would appear as a strident, bulky and discordant addition that would be significantly at odds with the current appearance of the host dwelling. 6. By reason of the land sloping downwards from Page Hill Avenue towards the appeal site, the appeal site occupies a prominent position at the end of the cul- de-sac upon the turning head of the highway and consequently the eye is naturally drawn towards the appeal site when approaching from the T-junction of Wharf View. Together with the angled arrangement of the host dwelling and an absence of any substantial screening, a clear view would be available towards the appeal site from a large part of Wharf View. Furthermore, the proposal would be visible from neighbouring dwellings, particularly those positioned in close proximity and opposite to the appeal site, where it would be read as an unduly dominant and incongruous feature. 7. Overall, the proposal would unacceptably dominate and overwhelm the host dwelling and would fail to complement the form and style of the host dwelling and the street scene. 8. Whilst the proposal would utilise a similar palette of materials to the host dwelling, this would not overcome the significant adverse harm identified. 9. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. It would therefore be contrary to Policies GP9 and GP35 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (2004)(LP) in so far as these policies seek to ensure that extensions to dwellings respect the appearance of the dwelling and its setting and other buildings in the locality. The proposal would also conflict with the more general design principles of the Framework. 10. Whilst not specifically cited by the Council within their reason for refusal on character and appearance grounds, I consider the proposal would also fail to comply with the guidance of the Residential Extensions Design Guide (SPG) in so far as this SPG requires front extensions to be of a small scale and not harm the quality or character of the building. Living Conditions 11. Given that No. 7 is set back from the build line of No. 6 by approximately 3 metres, the current outlook from windows within the front elevation of No. 7 is towards the turning head of the highway, the dwellings positioned around it and the single and two storey flank elevation of No. 6. 12. Despite the proposal maintaining the existing forward build line and the present outlook being towards the flank wall of No. 6, the introduction of a second storey with its extensive height in close proximity to the windows of No. 7 would dominate views from within the dwelling. As such, the proposal would overwhelm and appear unacceptably dominant and overbearing to the occupiers of No. 7. This would be harmful to their outlook and would materially compromise their living conditions. 13. Furthermore, I observed at my site visit that there is presently a degree of overshadowing to the ground floor window of No. 7 caused as a consequence of the existing relationship with the flank elevation of No. 6. Whilst the appellant Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/19/3219588 3 suggests that this position would not change and has cited analysis 1571-09 and the use of BRE in its favour, I note the Council are in disagreement. Whilst I have taken account of there being an existing breach of the nominal 45- degree zone given the existing relationship with the flank wall, there is no substantive evidence before me regarding light levels, and as such, I consider the height of the proposal would further limit daylight and increase overshadowing for the majority of the day. Therefore, the proposal would lead to an unacceptably harmful loss of daylight and overshadowing. 14. Whilst the appellant has drawn my attention to the blinds and curtains being regularly closed at No. 7 and the availability of a front garden area with shrubs, this is not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified above. 15. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would significantly harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 7 with particular regard to outlook and loss of light. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to LP Policy GP8 in so far as this policy seeks to ensure that development does not unreasonably harm any aspect of the amenity of nearby residents. Furthermore, the proposal would fail to accord with the guidance of the SPG in so far as the proposal would protrude beyond a 45-degree line from the nearest part of the nearest window in a neighbouring house. Other Matters 16. My attention has been drawn to a number of examples of similar extensions within the Page Hill estate, including, No. 4 Chetwode, No. 4 Hilltop Avenue and No. 2 Catherine Court Buckingham, for which, in relation to the latter, I have been provided with the appeal decision relating to that case1. However, I have little information relating to the particular circumstances of these developments. Notwithstanding this, I had the opportunity to look at these sites when I undertook my site visit. I saw that the character and appearance context of these schemes were different, dwellings occupied less prominent positions and their relationship to other dwellings was significantly different from the appeal case. As such, they are not directly analogous to the case before me. In any event, I must consider the appeal scheme on its individual planning merits and, accordingly, I am not persuaded that the general existence of other developments in the locality justifies the harm I have identified. 17. The appellant has identified a number of social, economic and environmental benefits associated with the proposal, including the use of an existing site without the need to encroach into the countryside, the support of a strong, vibrant and healthy community, an accessible and safe urban location and the improved thermal, acoustic and access arrangements for the occupiers of the host dwelling. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm I have identified above. 18. Although the appellant contends that the proposal makes provision for adequate garage and car parking as is required by the SPG, the absence of harm is a neutral factor weighing neither for nor against the proposal. 19. I have had regard to the appellant’s desire to provide enhanced family living accommodation, however, personal circumstances can seldom outweigh 1APP/J0405/A/09/2094205 Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/19/3219588 4 general planning considerations and do not outweigh the harm I have identified above. Conclusion 20. Accordingly, for the reasons given and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. E Brownless INSPECTOR