Part one part two storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 June 2019 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/E0345/D/19/3223944 9 Kintbury Walk, Reading, RG30 3HE • 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 M Saddiq against the decision of Reading Borough Council. • The application Ref 182260, dated 31 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 February 2019. • The development proposed is a part one part two storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a mid terrace two storey dwelling with a simple pitched roof having, like its neighbours, the ridge running parallel to the highway. It is served from the front by a tight pathway and unusually the rear elevation of this terrace is on fairly open view from Silchester Road as rear gardens run down to this street. The locality is of established residential character with a range of house types, many clustered terraces, which all come together to form an area of pleasing but unremarkable appearance with degrees of uniformity adding to the low key visual quality. The proposal is as described above and would provide additional ground floor family accommodation and a fourth bedroom. It would embody a full width flat roofed ground floor extension and a hipped first floor element atop this and set in from all sides with its roof lying well below the main ridge. 4. This terraced stretch of 6 homes has an upper rear level in unmodified form and those ground floor rear projections which do exist generally encompass a subtlety by reason of their size, siting and shape. Despite the efforts with matching materials and some subservience through set-ins, lower height and a hipped roof the combination of a sizeable box like ground floor element and its upper level adjunct would dominate the rear of this property and greatly detract from its original form. Seen in context with other, largely unaltered homes, this effect would be even more marked and the altered house would stand out as being an unfortunate and alien feature which would jar on the Appeal Decision APP/E0345/D/19/3223944 2 eye. The situation of visibility from Silchester Road is an unusual one and whilst one should always strive for good and sympathetic design it is even more necessary here than in some other locations nearby or further afield. 5. Core Strategy Policy CS7 and Policy DM9 of the Council’s Sites and Detailed Policies Document, taken together and amongst other matters, seek well designed new development that should protect local distinctiveness, complement the host property and its locality, have regard to existing scale and appearance, and not detract from the existing street scene. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal scheme would run contrary to these policies. It would also conflict with the parallel key design objective of the cited SPD albeit that document cannot be expected to cover every eventuality. Other matters 6. I sympathise with the wish to extend this property. I would agree that the issue is not one of loss of amenity to neighbours. I note that outbuildings would be removed albeit I did not find them offensive or out of character. I appreciate the Appellant makes an argument over possible ‘permitted development’ (pd) but that scheme is not before me and in any event aesthetic considerations are not to the fore in such development. I am not persuaded that the Appellant would pursue such a scheme even if it was deemed pd in any assessment because the ground floor configuration would appear to be quite different. I would therefore not agree that ‘fall back’ weight should apply here. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to one of the main issues identified above. 7. I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered; the Council’s policies which I cite mirror relevant objectives within the Framework. Overall conclusion 8. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR