Proposed extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 August 2019 by Chris Forrett BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 August 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/D0515/D/19/3232024 Crisp Farm, Whitemoor Road, March, Cambridgeshire PE15 0AE • 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 Z Agland against the decision of Fenland District Council. • The application Ref F/YR19/0132/F, dated 6 February 2019, was refused by notice dated 5 April 2019. • The development proposed is described on the application form as a proposed extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single-storey side extension and 2-storey extensions to front and rear of existing dwelling at Crisp Farm, Whitemoor Road, March, Cambridgeshire PE15 0AE in accordance with the terms of the application, F/YR19/0132/F, dated 6 February 2019, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: SE-954 11 revision B and SE-954 12 revision B. 3) the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Procedural Matter 2. The Council have amended the description of the development to the ‘erection of a single-storey side extension and 2-storey extensions to front and rear of existing dwelling’. It is noted that the Appellant has also utilised this description on their appeal form. I consider that this provides a better description of the proposed development and I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision APP/D0515/D/19/3232024 2 Reasons 4. The appeal site is located around 4 Kilometres away from the town of March and is in a rural area which lacks any significant built form. There are only a handful of other properties in the surrounding area. 5. The appeal property itself has a traditional rural cottage appearance but has been previously extended at the rear. There is also a long single storey side projection which includes some residential accommodation, stores and a garage. 6. The appeal development includes a two-storey front projection located centrally on the front elevation of the main part of the original dwelling. The extension would incorporate a large two storey glazed opening, including the front door. 7. From my site visit I saw that at the properties opposite (Nos 1 and 2 West Fen Cottage) there were single storey front projections which broke up the simple design of those dwellings. The appeal property also has a small porch with a gabled roof. To my mind, the additional of a two-storey front extension with its gable end broadly centred on the main part of the dwelling would enhance its overall appearance and would make a positive contribution to the host property. 8. In coming to that view I acknowledge that the amount of glazing within the front elevation of the extension would be a modern feature in an otherwise traditional rural cottage. However, the existing property already has a large glazed element on its rear elevation and I find that the amount of glazing only adds visual interest to the host property. 9. Finally, it is common ground between the main parties that the other aspects of the development do not raise any adverse planning issues and I have no reason to disagree with that view. 10. For the above reasons the development would not harm the character of the host dwelling or the surrounding area and would accord with Policy LP16(d) of the Fenland Local Plan (2014) which amongst other matters seeks to ensure that high quality environments are delivered, that development makes a positive contribution to local distinctiveness and the character of the area, and responds to and improves the character of the local built environment. It would also accord with the design aims of the National Planning Policy Framework. Conditions 11. Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the reason of certainty. In the interest of the character and appearance of the area a condition relating to the use of matching materials is also necessary. Conclusion 12. Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Chris Forrett INSPECTOR