First floor extension above garage and utility and conversion of existing garage

📊

See the success rate & inspector analytics

Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.

Sign Up Free

Technical Issues Heatmap

Character & Appearance
Extensions
Green Belt Policy

Inspector’s Reasoning

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 November 2023 by Jonathan Price BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI DMS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20.12.2023 Appeal Ref: APP/X3540/D/23/3332478 21 Blinco Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR32 3PB • 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 E Wigg against the decision of East Suffolk Council. • The application Ref DC/23/3368/FUL, dated 1 September 2023, was refused by notice dated 25 October 2023. • The development proposed is first floor extension above garage and utility and conversion of existing garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The effect on the character and appearance of the area Reasons 3. The host property is a 1970’s built house of a simple rectangular form, with a roof pitched between two storey side gables. There is a single storey element to one end. This currently accommodates the garage and utility room and wraps around the front of the dwelling to provide its porch and extended entrance hall. It is proposed to widen the main two-storey part of the house across the plot, keeping to the other dimensions and building over the single storey element and almost up to the boundary with the neighbouring house at No. 23. 4. Whilst a reasonably modest extension, it would bring the two storey gable close to the side of No. 23. The roof to this neighbouring house pitches to the sides, with its gable ends front and rear within the plot. There is further such variety to the design of housing along Blinco Road, including a mixture of one and two storey dwellings, although scale and siting are quite consistent. The dwellings are in the main quite evenly and closely spaced. This proposal would bring adjacent houses at Nos. 21 and 23 much closer together than is generally the case along this street. 5. The scheme would erode the presently quite consistent degree of built separation along this residential street, which currently preserves a degree of openness that contributes positively to its present character. The proposal would therefore conflict with design Policy WLP8.29 of the Waveney Local Plan1 1 East Suffolk Council – Waveney Local Plan covering the former Waveney Local Planning Authority area. Adopted 20 March 2019. Appeal Decision APP/X3540/D/23/3332478 2 in failing to respond to local context in respect of the spatial relationship between buildings prevailing in the wider street scene. 6. The appellant relies on recent approvals for side extensions in the vicinity, which have similarly led to closer gaps between adjacent houses. Both 38 and 40 Longfield Way have been extended at the side, although this reflects a close juxtaposition already existing at Nos. 42 and 44. Just around the corner to these, the houses at 2 and 5 The Glade, and at 12 Herons Close, have had two storey side extensions allowed by the Council. However, these five dwellings all occupy an area with a greater commonality of house size and design. This does not reflect quite the same varied built character as Blinco Road, where a sloping street and mixture of two and single storey dwellings provide a somewhat more open character. 7. Closer by, the two storey extension to the house at 14 Allen Road abuts the pitched roof of a large neighbouring bungalow that extends deeply into the plot. As with the previous examples, the visual circumstances and building relationships are far from being exactly similar to this proposal. These differences thus provide no compelling reason for me to determine this case other than on its individual merits and in relation to the specific circumstances within Blinco Road. 8. I have accounted for the proposal meeting the accommodation needs of a growing family, without the higher costs of moving home. However, this would not outweigh the harm found to the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 9. That the appeal be dismissed. Jonathan Price INSPECTOR
Expert Representation

Don't leave your appeal to chance.

Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.

Get Free Review How it works →