Erection of single and two storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 June 2019 by J Spurling BSc(Hons) DipTP PGDip(Law) PGDip(CMI) MRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/J3720/D/19/3227199 1 Market Way, Henley-In-Arden B95 5FD • 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 Ms Tracey Arkell against the decision of Stratford-upon-Avon District Council. • The application Ref 18/03294/FUL, dated 25 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 13 February 2019. • The development proposed is erection of single and two storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of single and two storey side extension at 1 Market Way, Henley-In-Arden, B95 5FD, in accordance with the terms of application Ref 18/03294/FUL, dated 25 October 2018 and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing number 3383_002. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of the occupier of No 211 Warwick Road, with particular regard to light, outlook and visual impact. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a two-storey rendered end terraced dwelling, which is situated on the corner of Warwick Road and Market Way. The property faces onto Market Way. 4. No 1 Market Way is slightly set back from Warwick Road and Market Way, and is of the same design as No 16 Market Way which is sited on the opposite corner of Market Way. These properties are visually distinct from other nearby properties on Market Way and Warwick Road, the majority of which have facing brickwork. There is some variation in terms of property styles within both Appeal Decision APP/J3720/D/19/3227199 2 roads. The appeal site lies outside of but adjacent to the Henley-in-Arden Conservation Area (CA), which runs along Warwick Road. 5. The proposed extension would be stepped down from the ridge line. The proposed extension at first floor level would be comparatively narrow when compared to the original dwelling, as it would only extend by approximately 2.2m beyond the existing side wall of the dwelling. At ground floor level, the proposed flat roofed single storey element would extend a further approximately 1.3m beyond the proposed two storey element. 6. The proposed extension would be visible from Warwick Road. Nonetheless, such views would be limited to oblique views, and would not result in a loss of visual cohesion between No 1 and No 16 Market Way. While recognising that the proposed extension would be visually distinct from the main dwelling, it would be read in the context of dwellings within Market Way and would broadly match those properties, through the use of facing brickwork. The proposed development due to its narrow width and set down would not significantly elongate or dominate the existing property. The proposed single storey extension element would only be slightly taller than the existing brick boundary wall, and therefore only marginally more visible than the existing wall. I consider that the proposal would be consistent with the character and appearance of the area. 7. Therefore, the proposal would be consistent with policies CS.1, CS.9 and CS.20 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (CS) (2016). Amongst other matters, these seek to ensure that high quality design should be achieved and that development proposals should contribute towards the character and quality of the District, reflecting the character and distinctiveness of the locality. Living conditions of occupier of No 211 Warwick Road 8. The appeal property adjoins No 211 Warwick Road, the rear elevation of which is set slightly back from No 1 Market Way. No 211 has a first floor rear window, that appears to serve a habitable room, and which is set back from the boundary of No 1. There are a number of existing skylights at No 211, which are set back from the boundary of No 1. No 211 also has a brick built single storey extension that has a large roof lantern as well as glazing to the rear elevation. The flank wall of this extension, which faces No 1 Market Way, is blank. The rear elevations of both properties and their respective rear gardens are broadly north facing. 9. The appellant has provided information that shows that the only possible direct loss of light to neighbouring properties would be before 7:00am and that there is already no direct light to the properties in the terrace till after 7:00pm. 10. Due to the position of the existing skylights at No 211 and the limited depth of the proposed two storey element at No 1, I consider that there would not be an unacceptable impact in terms of any reduction in outlook for the occupier of No 211. Due to the limited depth of the proposed extension, the proposal wold not lead to an overbearing impact on the living conditions of the occupier of No 211. Even if there would be some impact on sight lines through the roof lantern at No 211, sight lines through the rear elevation of the existing extension would be maintained. Due to the set back of the first floor window at No 211, I Appeal Decision APP/J3720/D/19/3227199 3 also consider that there would not be an unacceptable impact for the occupier of No 211 in terms of loss of light, outlook or visual impact. As the proposed extension would not extend beyond the existing extension at No 211, I also consider that there would be no unacceptable impact for the occupier of No 211 in terms of loss of light or overshadowing to the garden. 11. Therefore, the proposal would be consistent with policies CS.9 and CS.20 of the CS. Amongst other matters, these seek to ensure that proposals do not significantly impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. Other Matters 12. Various other objections have been raised by the occupier of No 211 Warwick Road including potential future difficulties in accessing the side elevation of their extension should they need to do any work to their extension roof, and the impact on property values. However, planning is primarily concerned with matters in the public interest and therefore these matters do not have a significant bearing on the merits of the appeal. 13. The occupier of No 2 Market Way has raised various concerns including issues relating to parking. From the information before me, no additional bedrooms would be provided and therefore no additional parking provision is required. The existing building at No 1 sits within a small plot and the proposed extension would lead to a reduction in the amount of garden space. Nonetheless, the proposed extension would be small in scale and the majority of the garden space would remain. Therefore, it would not lead to the extended dwelling appearing cramped or overdeveloped within its plot. Conditions 14. In reaching the above findings, I have considered the imposition of conditions against the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Planning Practice Guidance and having regard to the Council’s suggested conditions. 15. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of providing certainty of the proposed development to which the planning permission relates and to ensure an acceptable appearance with surrounding properties. Conclusion 16. For the reasons identified and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is allowed. J Spurling INSPECTOR