Single storey front and side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 August 2019 by Ifeanyi Chukwujekwu BSc (Hons) MSC PIEMA RTPI (Assoc) Decision by A U Ghafoor BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 August 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/V0728/D/19/3228240 5 Rosedale Close, Skelton-In-Cleveland, TS12 2WS • 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 Joanne Cole against the decision of Council of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council. • The application Ref R/2019/0011/RS, dated 2 January 2019, was refused by notice dated 26 February 2019. • The development proposed is single storey front and side extension. 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 effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. No. 5 is a two and half storey detached dwelling located in the middle of a run of detached dwellings on Rosedale Close. The properties on this run face Hamsterley Way, which is a public highway. The surrounding area is residential, and the character is partly derived from detached dwellings with front drive and single garage. 5. The proposed extension would project significantly beyond the existing front elevation, thereby causing the front to protrude adjacent dwellings. It would also span the entire width of the host property and project beyond the existing side elevation. The proposal would be of an excessive mass and scale, which would be incongruous with the host property and the surrounding area. Also, the proposed projection to the side would cause the garage door to be positioned ‘off centre.’ This would negatively affect the appearance of the host property. 6. The appellant argues that there are several properties in the area which have extensions, and they have provided photographs to support this argument. Appeal Decision APP/V0728/D/19/3228240 2 These examples are not the appeal being considered, and each application and appeal should be determined on its individual merits. Nevertheless, except for No.15 Rosedale Close, the examples submitted show extensions to the rear. Dwellings in the area, especially those on either side of the appeal property largely appear unaltered at the front. The design and location of the extensions would not respect or enhance the character the surrounding area. 7. I find that the nature, scale and design of the proposed single storey front and side extension would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Accordingly, there is conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy SD4 (parts j and k) of Redcar and Cleveland’s Local Plan (Adopted May 2018). Conclusion and Recommendation 8. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Ifeanyi Chukwujekwu Appeals Planning Officer Inspector’s Decision 9. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal should be dismissed. A U Ghafoor INSPECTOR