Single storey extension to the side to form conservatory

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 December 2019 by Robert Hitchcock BSc DipCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 December 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/C3240/D/19/3237116 27 Church Road, Telford, Shropshire TF4 2AS • 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 J Murfin against the decision of Telford and Wrekin Council. • The application Ref TWC/2019/0527, dated 10 June 2019, was refused by notice dated 27 August 2019. • The development proposed is a single storey extension to the side to form conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension to the side to form conservatory at 27 Church Road, Telford, Shropshire TF4 2AS in accordance with the terms of application TWC/2019/0527, dated 10 June 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: JM2019/1160/1, JM2019/1160/2 and BP/JM/1160/4. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan no. JM2019/1160/2. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of development on the: • Character and appearance of the building and locality; and, • Historic character, appearance and setting of buildings of local interest. Reasons Character and appearance 3. No 27 Church Road is an extended semi-detached dwelling lying to the southern side of a local distributor road within a cluster of residential development. The area is of mixed age and character dwellings, including traditional semi-detached and detached properties intertwined with more modern terraces, individually styled properties and infill development. To the northern side of the road is a public house, church and parkland. Appeal Decision APP/C3240/D/19/3237116 2 4. The site lies within a small row of irregularly positioned traditional brick cottages that have seen varying degrees of alteration over time. No 27 has had considerable changes to its window openings, front boundary wall and a large porch has been added to the front elevation. To the rear are further extensions and detached buildings are present within the rear/side garden areas. 5. The proposed development would be positioned on the front half of the side gable forward of an existing shed and summerhouse within the side garden area. These structures, along with a pedestrian gate and reduced conifer hedge stretch across the gap between no 27 and the neighbouring property at 28 Church Road. 6. Although the structure would fill a major part of the width of the side garden and continue along the line of the existing forward elevation, the contrast arising from its substantially glazed elevations and lightweight roof would create a visual distinction. This, taken with its lower height, would present as a subordinate form of extension that would appear recessive when viewed along the Church Road frontage. 7. Due to the limited height above the existing structures and hedge, the proposed development would retain a sense of separation between the adjacent semi pairs. Furthermore, the proposed use of matching brickwork and framing similar to the existing front porch, a suitable degree of visual consolidation with the existing building would be achieved. 8. Noting the significant alterations to no 27, there is poor level of symmetry with its neighbouring semi. The addition of the lightweight conservatory extension would subsequently have little adverse impact on the sense of balance between the pair. Furthermore, due to the local irregularity of building orientations, positioning behind their front boundaries and the differences of building types, the proposed development would not appear incongruous or adversely affect any consistent rhythm or character of development within the locality. 9. For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would comply with policies BE1 and BE2 of the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan 2011-2031 (2018) (LP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as they seek to protect the character and appearance of development and their locality. Buildings of Local Interest 10. Within the immediate locality, the Council has identified a number of buildings of local historic importance. These include the adjacent pair of semis at 28 & 29 Church Road, buildings to the rear of the site, and The Church Wicketts, a public house on the opposite side of the road. The buildings’ significance stems from their forming part of an earlier C19 settlement, now incorporated within the wider Malinslee suburb. 11. The proposed conservatory would sit within the gap between no 27 and no 28. Whilst the extension would extend closer to the adjacent building, a gap would be retained ensuring a visual break. No direct physical effect upon no 28 or its architectural features would result. 12. As a consequence of its position forward of the existing curtilage buildings and hedge, the conservatory would have a greater impact on the streetscene; however, due to its scale and lightweight construction, the sense of separation and perception of space between the original buildings would substantially be Appeal Decision APP/C3240/D/19/3237116 3 retained. Furthermore, the contrasting nature of the extension would read as a later addition and appear secondary to the main two-storey brick elevations to either side of it. It would thereby preserve the relationship of those skewed main elevations. 13. In masking the existing sheds and hedging currently between the buildings and providing a subordinate form of extension confined to the curtilage of the host building, I find that the proposed development would not cause any direct harm to the buildings of Local Interest or to their group setting. 14. For the above reasons, I consider the proposed development would comply with policy BE6 of the LP as it relates to preserving the character, appearance and setting of buildings of local interest. Conditions 15. I have considered the suggested conditions from the Council and had regard to Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the National Planning Practice Guidance in terms of the use of planning conditions. In addition to the standard condition limiting the lifespan of the planning permission, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. 16. The Council have suggested conditions in relation to approval of the external materials, finishes and window/door sections. Given the small scale domestic nature of the development the conditions appear unnecessarily onerous. However, a condition requiring the use of the specified external surface materials is necessary and reasonable in the interest of the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 17. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. R Hitchcock INSPECTOR