Two storey front extension and internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2019 by Sarah Colebourne MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 17th June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/H0520/D/19/3226213 18 Teversham Way, Eaton Ford, Cambridgeshire, PE19 7QT • 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 and Mrs Hillyard against the decision of Huntingdonshire District Council. • The application Ref 18/02567/HH/FUL, dated 29 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 2 April 2019. • The development proposed is a two storey front extension and internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at Milestone Close. Reasons Character and appearance 3. 18 Teversham Way is a modern detached two storey house on a cul-de-sac of similar properties within a residential estate. There is a detached garage in front of the house. The proposed development would extend across the front elevation, projecting forward of that elevation with a very small gap between it and the garage. 4. As the estate has irregular building lines along its curving roads, the principle of a front extension would not be unacceptable in terms of character and appearance if all other matters were acceptable. The Council’s design guidance, which discourages front extensions, appears to apply to designs which reflect traditional building forms. That is clearly not the case for this estate and that part of the guidance does not seem to be relevant to this proposal. 5. However, the size, scale, form and design of the proposal are of concern. The existing dwelling has a pitched roof form, relieved by a small gable in the centre of the front elevation. That gable would be replaced by the proposed extension which would have a very shallow hipped roof form at odds with the steeper pitch of the existing roof. The width of the extension would occupy Appeal Decision APP/H0520/D/19/3226213 2 more than half of the width of the front elevation of the existing dwelling and would thus appear overly dominant when seen from the junction to the cul-de- sac. Furthermore, by reason of the depth of the extension and the very narrow gap that would result between the it and the garage, it would appear cramped when seen from the head of the cul-de-sac. 6. I conclude then that the proposed extension is of a poor quality design which would harm the character and appearance of both the dwelling and the area. It would be contrary to the Council’s development plan policies in LP12 and LP13 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 (LP) which seek to encourage high quality design that responds positively to the area’s character and identity. It would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which has similar objectives. Living conditions 7. The proposed extension would be sited very close to properties to the side of the appeal site on Milestone Close. There would be a distance of some 11m from no 3 Milestone Close and less than 14m from nos 1 and 2 Milestone Close. Nos 1 and 2 are small ground floor and first floor flats with rear windows which would directly face the proposal. No 3 is the nearest of four houses whose rear windows would have an oblique view towards the proposal. 8. Whilst there would be no habitable room windows in the side elevation that would harm the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers, as a result of its siting and size, the extension would be unduly dominant and overbearing when seen from the garden and rear habitable room windows of nos 1 and 2 in particular and to a lesser extent from no 3. 9. Given its orientation to the west of nos 1 and 2, it would also result in a loss of late afternoon and evening sunlight which at present filters through the gap between the garage and the house. Lying to the south-west of no 3, there would also be a loss of afternoon sun to that property and whilst that did not form part of the Council’s reasons for refusal it adds to my concerns. 10. As the properties at nos 1, 2 and 3 have small rear gardens, the effect of an unduly overbearing development and the loss of sunlight would cause significant harm to the living conditions of those occupiers. I have noted that the proposal was amended during the course of the application but the changes are insufficient to overcome the harm that would be caused. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the Council’s development plan policies in LP12 and LP13 of the LP which seek to ensure that development proposals respond positively to their context and integrate successfully with other buildings. It would also be contrary to the Framework which has similar objectives. Conclusion 11. I conclude that, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that justify determining the appeal otherwise. The appeal should be dismissed. Sarah Colebourne Inspector