Proposed extension & alterations to dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 May 2019 by Andreea Spataru BA (Hons) MA MRTPI Decision by Susan Ashworth BA (Hons) BPL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/A2470/D/19/3226256 Goouds Close, 10 Whitwell Road, Empingham LE15 8PX • 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 & Mrs Sloan against the decision of Rutland County Council. • The application Ref 2019/0141/FUL, dated 5 February 2019, was refused by notice dated 3 April 2019. • The development proposed is described as “proposed extension & alterations to dwelling”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site relates to a detached, two storey dwelling located in a prominent position at the edge of the village, next to the open countryside. The dwelling has a rendered finish, red tiles, and an asymmetric roof with a steep pitch, low eaves to the front and higher eaves to the rear. The dwelling’s appearance is also characterised by two modest timber clad dormers and a partly timber clad porch to the front, and a projecting gable to the rear elevation. The site is situated within a predominantly residential area characterised by a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached properties. Neighbouring properties vary in terms of scale, design, materials and finishes. 5. The proposal would replace the existing detached garage and carport that are located to the side/rear of dwelling and would incorporate a new garage to the side/front and a pergola to the rear. The two-storey extension would cover the full depth of the host dwelling and its gable ends would project beyond the main front and rear walls. Appeal Decision APP/A2470/D/19/3226256 2 6. Although the extension would not exceed the building line currently determined by the front porch, the forward projection of the two storey extension would result in a sprawling and poorly proportioned form of development. The extension would not appear subservient and in keeping to the host dwelling due to the elevated eaves height. As a result, the extension would be an incongruous addition to the appeal property and the extended dwelling would lack a cohesive form and character. 7. The development would significantly increase the footprint and volume of the existing building. When viewed from the sides, the host dwelling would be dominated by the massing of the extension. Thus, the development would not only be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host dwelling but would also appear bulky and cumbersome in its own right. 8. The increased massing would make the dwelling considerably more substantial and thereby more dominant, particularly when viewed from the open countryside. I note that the appeal dwelling is set-back from the road and that the extension would also be at a distance from the highway. Notwithstanding this, given the prominent position of the appeal site within the streetscene, the incongruous appearance of the development would be clearly visible. The extension would not harmonise with the scale and proportions of the host dwelling, or compliment or improve the character of the area. 9. The appeal statement indicates that the extension would match the render and grey timber cladding of the host dwelling. Timber cladding is used in small amounts to the front of the appeal dwelling and neighbouring properties. The extensive use of timber cladding in the manner proposed would contribute to the discordant appearance of the extension to the front of the property. The proposal would therefore be out of keeping with the host dwelling and neighbouring dwellings, and thus harmful to the appearance of both the existing dwelling and the streetscene. 10. The appeal statement also refers to the materials of the existing car port, which do not reflect those of the appeal dwelling. The car port has a lightweight appearance and its materials are common in the construction of car ports. Therefore, although the existing structure does not match the materials of the host dwelling, it is not directly comparable to the proposed development due to the difference in the scale, form, and siting in relation to the main building. 11. I acknowledge that the front facing dormer windows incorporate gables and are a prominent feature of the building. However, the proposed gable, with its elevated eaves height and substantial width and projection, is not directly comparable with the existing features in design terms and would have a dominating impact on the character and appearance of the property due to its position and scale. 12. Regarding the appellant’s comment about the Parish Council and neighbours’ support, irrespective of whether an objection has been raised, I have to consider the proposal on its merits. I note in this case that third parties have in fact objected to the scheme. 13. Accordingly, I conclude that through a combination of design, large size, scale, materials, and prominent position, the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Therefore, the development would be contrary to Policy CS19 of the Council’s adopted Appeal Decision APP/A2470/D/19/3226256 3 Core Strategy (2011) and Policy SP15 of the adopted Site Allocations & Policies Development Plan (2014), which require, amongst other things, for development to be appropriate and sympathetic to its setting by having regard to scale, density, massing, materials, and its relationship to adjoining buildings and landscape features. Recommendation 14. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Andreea Spataru APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. S Ashworth INSPECTOR