Development was originally described as “the replacement of roof tiles, new greenhouse, new cycle storage & minor amendments to door and window to the approved scheme

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2019 by Thomas Courtney BA(Hons) MA Decision by Andrew Owen MA BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/D/19/3225685 39 Blenheim Road, Old Basing RG24 7HP • 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 Mrs Maria Tharshini Marinus against the decision of Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/02477/HSE, dated 19 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 11 January 2019. • The development was originally described as “the replacement of roof tiles, new greenhouse, new cycle storage & minor amendments to door and window to the approved scheme.” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of materials to roof tiles, installation of 1 no. additional roof light to side (south) elevation and removal of window to ground floor side (south) elevation; erection of timber structure to side (south) elevation of property; erection of greenhouse and cycle store to side (north) elevation of property and installation of new door to side (north) elevation; erection of single storey rear extension including timber decking; and construction of timber pergola and swing to front garden at 39 Blenheim Road, Old Basing RG24 7HP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/02477/HSE, dated 19 August 2018 and plans PL01, S005R6, S002R6, S004R5, S001, S003, and unnumbered plans showing Pergola, Swing, and Timber Structure submitted with it. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Procedural Matter 3. The application was submitted retrospectively and during the site visit I observed that most of the works have been carried out. Accordingly, I have considered the proposal on this basis. 4. The description of development in the decision above is based on that used on both the appeal form and the Council’s decision notice and so is not disputed. Appeal Decision APP/3225685 2 Main Issues 5. The main issues are: o The effect of the roof tiles, porch, pergola, and swing on the character and appearance of the area; and o The effect of the proposed greenhouse on the living conditions of the occupants of 37 Blenheim Road, having particular regard to privacy and outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance 6. The appeal property comprises a detached bungalow situated within a triangular plot at the end of a cul-de-sac in an established residential area characterised by a mix of two storey dwellings and bungalows. A white rendered and black tiled wall runs along the front boundary of the appeal site. 7. The use of black tiles on the roof of the appeal property differs from most of the surrounding houses which have red/brown clay tiles. However, directly opposite the appeal property, Nos. 18 and 20 have black slate roofs. There is evidently a mixed character to the roofing materials and colour in the area. I find that the black tiles at the appeal site are not so incongruous that they significantly detract from the character of the area or result in harm to the street scene. 8. The timber porch structure attached to the southern side elevation is well set back within the plot and is partially screened mainly because of its proximity to the wall and fence on the side boundary. Although the tiled roof of the structure can be seen from the road and from neighbouring properties to the south, it does not negatively affect the street scene or appear visually harmful. It is a modest structure that replaces a rendered structure of a similar nature and scale in the same location. Although appearing contemporary in style, the use of timber is typical of garden structures in residential areas and it matches the rear decking and fencing. 9. The timber pergola and swing to the front garden are only partially visible over the high front boundary wall. It is not unusual for timber garden structures to be visible from the street scene and I note there are other pergolas visible in the wider area. The pergola is therefore not uncharacteristic for the area and its appearance does not result in visual harm. The tiled roof of the swing is visible from the road but due to the small scale of the structure and the use of tiles which match the roof of the host dwelling as well as the boundary wall, it does not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. 10. I therefore find the roofing materials, the porch on the southern side elevation, and the pergola and swing in the front garden do not detract from the character of the area. They therefore are in accordance with policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Local Plan (the ‘Local Plan’), policy OB&L 7 of the Old Basing and Lychpit Neighbourhood Plan and the Old Basing & Lynchpit Village Design Statement, which together seek to ensure development contributes positively to local distinctiveness, and has due regard to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Appeal Decision APP/3225685 3 Living conditions 11. The proposed greenhouse, which is partially built on the northern side elevation, abuts the southern boundary of 37 Blenheim Road. The submitted drawing indicates there will be no windows facing No.37 as all the glazed elements are within the roof and facing the rear garden of No. 39 and at my site visit I saw that there was a solid wall on the boundary. The new ground floor internal door which serves the greenhouse is screened from view by virtue of the height of the greenhouse’s side wall. There will be no direct line of sight of the neighbouring dwelling from within the greenhouse or from the internal doorway. I therefore find there will be no loss of privacy. 12. Furthermore, although the wall of the greenhouse projects slightly above the boundary fence, I do not find that it has an adverse dominant and overbearing impact when seen from No 37 and therefore there is no harmful loss of outlook. 13. Overall, I conclude there is no unreasonable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of 37 Blenheim Road with regards to loss of privacy or outlook. The development therefore does not conflict with Policy EM10 (2b) of the Local Plan which aims to ensure a high quality of amenity for occupants of neighbouring properties. Other Matters 14. I note concerns have been raised with regards to lighting, and other works carried out in the gardens, including raising the level of the rear garden and the drainage of these areas. However, any such works are not the subject of the appeal before me. Similarly, the concerns regarding construction practises does not affect my view that the development is acceptable. 15. I do not consider the windows at first floor level have any adverse impact on the privacy of residents on London Road, and the Council’s decision supports my view. 16. Representations were made to the effect that the rights of the occupiers of No 37, under Article 8 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998, would be violated if the appeal were allowed. However, as I have found that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to their living conditions, I do not agree. The degree of interference that would be caused would be insufficient to give rise to a violation of rights under Article 8 of the First Protocol. Conditions 17. The Council have suggested that only a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the plans is necessary. To ensure this, I have phrased the decision so that it includes within it reference to the approved plans. Recommendation 18. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. Thomas Courtney Appeal Decision APP/3225685 4 APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 19. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Andrew Owen INSPECTOR