Proposed development is an extension to replace existing flat roof and provide additional living space

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 May 2018 by Victor Callister BA(Hons) PGC(Oxon) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:2 July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P1425/D/19/3224993 5A Stanley Road, Peacehaven BN10 7SP • 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 Daniel Rickard against the decision of Lewes District Council. • The application Ref LW/18/0513, dated 25 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 18 January 2019. • The proposed development is an extension to replace existing flat roof and provide additional living space. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issues are; • the effect of the development on character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area, • the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 5 Stanley Road (No 5), having regard to light and sunlight. • the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, having regard to privacy. Reasons The effect of the development on character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area 1. Located on a corner of Stanley Road, where the land falls away towards Kings Close, 5A Stanley road (No 5A) is an extension to an original bungalow, subdivided to create the single storey flat roofed host dwelling. Along with its semidetached pair, it sits below the level of Stanley Road and is adjacent 2 detached chalet bungalows. Otherwise, this leafy part of Stanley Road and Kings Close consists of 2 storey houses that have a wide variety of architectural expressions, including some newer development, which results in an eclectic streetscape. Appeal Decision APP/P1425/D/19/3224993 2 2. The proposal appears to take its design cues, including roof form, window and balcony detailing from the design of other newer properties in the area, rather than from the form and design of the host property. Although the proposed extension would use white render to match the host dwelling, the proposed form, roof and architectural expression would be radically different from either the host property or its semi-detached pair. This would result in the proposal appearing to be a separate dwelling to the host property, rather than as a subservient addition. 3. The proposal to extend the existing single storey ground floor of the host dwelling and construct a part first floor over, would be a significant addition to the modestly scaled host dwelling. Due to the fall in land levels from Stanley Road to Kings Close and the prominent corner location, the proposal would result in a bulky and overbearing appearance in relation to the host property and surrounding dwellings. 4. The overbearing scale, and design of the proposed extension would be discordant with the host dwelling and would appear incongruous in the streetscape. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of both the host property and that of the local area. The proposal would be contrary to policies ST3 and RES13 of the Lewes and District Local Plan 2013 (the Local Plan), which seek to ensure that development respects the appearance and character of the local area and that extensions integrate with and are subsidiary to existing buildings. The effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 5, having regard to light and sunlight 5. At first floor level the proposal would add significant additional bulk under a saltbox roof form and a proposed raised pitched roof to replace the existing flat roof over most of the rear of the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling partly wraps around and extends significantly beyond the rear of No 5 and has a south facing garden. 6. The proposed additional bulk at first floor and roof levels would, when combined with this north to south orientation, result in overshadowing to the rear of No 5 during the afternoon and evening. Notwithstanding the proposed shallow roof slopes and removal of the rear conservatory to No 5A, during the winter months the degree of overshadowing generated by this additional bulk and roof levels would be significant. 7. As well as affecting the area of the rear garden nearest to the bungalow at No 5, the proposal would reduce the light reaching the window and glazed doors of rear facing rooms of this dwelling, which have the potential to be used for a variety of residential purposes by the occupiers. Although these openings are currently partly obscured by planting, this could be removed at any time. 8. The overshadowing and loss of light would harm the living conditions of the occupiers e oppressive when experienced from the rear of No 5. 9. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Local Plan policies ST3 and RES13, which seek to ensure that development respects the amenity of adjoining properties, including natural daylight. Appeal Decision APP/P1425/D/19/3224993 3 The effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, having regard to privacy 10. Two pairs of fully glazed bi-fold doors are proposed for the southwest corner of the first floor extension, creating a wide opening onto a glazed balcony that would wrap around the width of the rear elevation and part of the west elevation, which would also have an opening with three windows. 11. The proposed glazed doors and balcony would look out towards the 2 storey houses on the south side of Kings Close. Although there are other 2 storey properties on Stanley Close that back on to these properties, these are further away than the proposal that do not have the same elevated position, due to the land sloping away to the western end of Stanley Road towards Stanley Close. However, the raised level and proximity of the proposal from the properties on Kings Close would create an elevated vantage point. When combined with the proposed fully glazed bi-fold doors and balcony this would result in a significant degree of overlooking and loss of privacy. 12. Due to their elevated position, proximity and scale the first floor glazed doors and balcony on the west elevation of the proposal would allow significant overlooking of the rear and side windows of 31 Stanley Close (No 31), resulting in a loss of privacy. However, the proposed first floor opening with 3 windows on the west elevation of the proposal would not result in overlooking of the side and rear of No 31 above that to be expected in a developed residential area of this type. 13. The proposals effect on overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of dwellings on Kings Close and No 31 would be harmful to their living conditions. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Local Plan policy ST3, which seeks to ensure that development respects the amenity of adjoining properties, including privacy. Other Matters 14. The potential benefits of the proposal for improving the neglected condition of the appeal property have been raised by the appellant. This is not however dependant on the proposal, and it is possible to address this neglect without the harm I have identified above. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. Victor Callister INSPECTOR