Side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2019 by R Morgan MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15th January 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/J2373/D/19/3238121 39 Melbourne Avenue, Blackpool FY5 3DX • 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 Miss Diane Hutchinson against the decision of Blackpool Borough Council. • The application Ref 19/0357, dated 22 May 2019, was refused by notice dated 22 July 2019. • The development proposed is a side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a side extension at 39 Melbourne Avenue in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 19/0357, dated 22 May 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: AO19/069/BR/01 rev C and AO19/069/S/01. 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. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. Number 39 Melbourne Avenue (No 39) is a modern semi-detached dwelling located in a residential area, which is characterised by properties of a similar age and style. The houses are generally set back from the street behind front gardens which contribute to a feeling of spaciousness in the area. No 39 is located on the corner of Melbourne Avenue and Canberra Close and has gardens to the front, rear and side. 4. The proposed single storey side extension would occupy the length of the house, with a gable roof to match that of the existing property. It would be of an appropriate design and would appear subservient to the host dwelling with matching materials and fenestration. However, the proposed extension would Appeal Decision APP/J2373/D/19/3238121 2 bring the building line of No 39 closer to the carriageway of Canberra Close, and the Council is concerned that this would result in an enclosing and overbearing feel. 5. Design note 7 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document – Extending your Home (SPD), says that existing side building lines should normally be respected unless it can be shown that a proposed extension will not have a negative impact on the streetscene. 6. The side elevation of No 39 is already closer to the carriageway of Canberra Close than the properties fronting directly onto that street, which are stepped in position following the curve of the road, and set back behind front gardens and driveways. 7. The entrance to Canberra Close is framed by numbers 39 and 37 Melbourne Avenue and their side gardens. Although neither property has been extended at the side, No 39 has a fence with a row of tall shrubs behind, and No 37 has a high, thick hedge along the boundary. There is a brick wall between the front elevation of No 39 and the side boundary, and a garden shed with a pitched roof in the corner of the rear garden of No 39, adjoining the front garden of 2 Canberra Close. The effect of these features and boundary treatments is to reduce the feeling of openness along this particular section of the street, and to provide a sense of enclosure. 8. The proposed extension would be single storey and of a modest size. Although it would take up most of the side garden of the house, a gap of just under 1 metre to the boundary would be retained. Given the limited scale of the extension, and taking account of the existing character of the street in this location, the proposal would not result in a significant reduction in the sense of openness at the entrance to Canberra Close, and would not undermine the spacious feel of the area. As such, it would accord with the provisions of the SPD. 9. I conclude that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. I find no conflict with Policy CS7 of the Blackpool Core Strategy 2106 or Saved Policies BH3, LQ1, LQ2 and LQ14 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2006, which require new development, including extensions, to be well designed in relation to the existing building and local area. There is also no conflict with the section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which has similar concerns. Furthermore, the proposal complies with the detailed requirements for house extensions set out in the SPD. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given the appeal should succeed and planning permission granted, subject to conditions that are necessary in the interests of certainty and safeguarding the character and appearance of the area. R Morgan INSPECTOR