Works to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 February 2019 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11th March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/L1765/D/18/3219526 8 Grosvenor Drive, Winchester, SO23 7HF • 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 Chris Simmans against the decision of Winchester City Council. • The application Ref 18/02069/HOU, dated 3 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 November 2018. • The development proposed was described as ‘Works to front’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling within a wider residential estate comprising properties of broadly similar age, type and appearance. The original building style for No 8 and other properties included an integral garage set within a flat roof, forward projection across part of the dwelling’s front elevation. This repeat design, together with the common use of materials, detailing, and largely open plan frontages gives the estate a fairly homogenous appearance. Although many properties have been altered beyond their original form, including through conversion of garages to living accommodation and the erection of pitched roofs over some of the forward projections, these changes have not significantly diluted the pleasing cohesion that exists between the buildings along Grosvenor Drive and beyond. 4. The appeal proposal seeks to extend the existing single-storey front projection upwards, whilst simultaneously projecting the roof over the main part of the dwelling forwards. These would meet at an eaves level roughly at one and a half storeys high. A square window would be inserted in the front elevation and the addition would be clad with timber boarding to its front and sides. Appeal Decision APP/L1765/D/18/3219526 2 5. The Council adopted its High Quality Places Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in 2015, the goal of which is to set out the principles of good urban design. Part 8 of the SPD deals with extensions and it recognises that front extensions can often be difficult to incorporate, as they can appear overly prominent in the street scene. 6. In this instance the appeal proposal would noticeably remodel the shape and form of the house within a frontage where consistency in design is important to the character of the area, especially at first floor level where changes to the original pattern of development are minimal. Although there is not an absolute rigid building line to the properties along this side of Grosvenor Drive, or along Green Park Close where they run contiguously, there is nevertheless a clear sense of regimentation in terms of layout and appearance. Whilst the amount of additional floorspace that is proposed would be small, the front extension, by reason of its uncharacteristic form and materials, would appear as an obvious change that would be prominent and out of keeping. This would be further accentuated by the front window that would be awkward and unrelated to the fenestration pattern of the existing dwelling. 7. I see no benefit by removing the existing flat roof to the front, or by replacing the permitted construction of a pitched roof over it with the appeal proposal, as both are established features of the architecture in the area. Neither did I detect any harm from the slightly exposed flank gable wall of 2 Green Park Close adjacent that would benefit from being partly hidden by the proposed works. 8. Overall, I find that the proposal would be insensitive to the existing character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider area. In this regard it would be contrary to Policies DM15 and DM16 of the Winchester District local Plan Part 2 (2017) insofar as they require new development to respect and respond positively to the character and local distinctiveness of an area. 9. The appellant has referred to other house extensions both locally and further afield. The case at 7a Grosvenor Drive, opposite the appeal site, bears no comparison to the appeal proposal, being a two-storey side extension to a corner property that has been constructed with matching materials and detailing. Other examples that have been put to me are not within the immediate locality. Neither do I know the planning history or local context to these other examples. As such, they have no immediate bearing on the appeal proposal, which I have, in any event, considered on its own merits. 10. I appreciate that there were no objections to the proposal. I also note that the space is required to improve living conditions for the appellant’s son. However, there is no evidence before me to suggest that the proposal would be the only means to secure this. Neither of these factors alter my conclusion that the extension would harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. John D Allan INSPECTOR