Heres the decision on the 1st appeal by Platinum Properties. It is good but there are worrying implications for the second appeal. We need to keep fighting! Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal: on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area; and on the living conditions of the occupants of 57 Tryon Close. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site is located on Tryon Close, which is part of a large residential estate. The appeal site accommodates a detached property that is linked to the neighbouring property No 57 by a garage. I observed on my site visit that the appeal site forms a prominent corner position within the area. The property has most recently been operated as a dental surgery at ground floor level, with a residential flat above. It was evident that such uses have ceased and the property is currently unoccupied. The appellant wishes to convert the property to a House in Multi Occupation (HMO) for 6 individual occupants and construct a single storey rear extension and a first floor extension. 4. The Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document sets out that rear single storey extensions should not exceed 4 metres. The proposal would result in a rear extension of approximately 6.5 metres. I consider that the proposed rear extension due to its scale and mass would be disproportionately large to the host property, which would harm its character and appearance. Whilst the boundary fence would largely screen views of the rear extension from the wider area, the roof would be clearly visible. Given that the appeal site forms a prominent corner position, I also consider that the siting of the rear extension, along with its scale and mass Appeal Decision APP/U3935/A/13/2207835 planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area, to its detriment. 5. I concur with the Council that the first floor extension by virtue of its design, scale, mass and siting would be in keeping with the host dwelling and the local area. 6. In conclusion, whilst I accept that the proposed rear extension would be constructed of high quality materials that would complement the host dwelling, by virtue of its scale, mass and siting would be disproportionate to the host property and would appear out of keeping with the area, causing significant harm to the character and appearance of both. As a result, the proposal is contrary to Policy DS6 and H15 of the Swindon Borough Council Local Plan (2006) (the LP). These policies seek to ensure that there are high standards of design, that proposals are sympathetic to the host property and the local context and are acceptable in terms of proportion, scale, shape and mass. The proposal would also conflict with guidance set out with the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document. I also consider that the proposed development does not meet the general requirement for good design as set out within Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 7. The appellant has set out that there are other extensions in Tryon Close that demonstrate that such development is not unusual in the area. However, I am mindful that they do not share the same location or individual circumstance as the proposal and that each case should be considered on its own merits. Living conditions 8. The host property is detached, but is linked to No 57 via a garage. I observed on my site visit that there is currently a substantial boundary fence that separates the rear gardens of No 57 and No 58. The Council has raised concern that the boundary fence could be removed in the future, however, there is no evidence before to suggest that either No 57 or No 58 would wish to do so. Whilst I acknowledge that there would be windows within the rear extension that would face No 57, these would be set at a lower level than the boundary fence. In addition, given that the proposed rear extension is single storey and is approximately 3 metres from the shared boundary, I consider that the extension would not be overbearing, cause any loss of privacy or loss of sunlight or daylight. I accept that there would be some mutual overlooking, however, I observed that this would not be significant and not untypical for such a residential area. 9. The Council has raised concern that the intensification of use of the property would cause harm to the residential amenity of No 57. However, no further evidence has been provided on this matter. The conversion of the property to a HMO is likely to increase the comings and goings associated with 6 separate individuals living in the property rather than a family, however, there is no evidence before me to suggest that this would be at an unacceptable level. I am also mindful that the property has most recently been operating as a dental surgery which is likely to have generated significantly more comings and goings than would be created by the proposed HMO. Whilst I appreciate that the property is not in full residential use, under permitted development rights uses falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) can be converted to Use Class 4 (houses in multiple occupation for up to 6 unrelated persons with shared amenities). Given that the host property is detached, set within a residential estate and has in the past been a dwellinghouse, I consider that this adds weight to my conclusion that a HMO for 6 unrelated individuals would not cause harm to living conditions of No 57. 10. In conclusion, I consider that the proposal would not result in any harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 57. Consequently, the proposal complies with Policies DS6 and H15 of the LP in this regard. The policies seek to protect residential amenity from visual intrusion, loss of privacy, noise and disturbance and loss of light. 11. Concern has also been raised in relation to the loss of privacy to No 5 and No 6 Tryon Close as a result of the proposal. However, I observed that the windows associated with the first floor extension which would be orientated towards these properties would serve en-suite bathrooms and therefore could be fitted with obscure glazing and secured through a planning condition, which I consider would address this matter. Other matters 12. Local residents have raised concern that the proposal would lead to increased competition for off road parking spaces in the area and increased traffic. During my site visit I did not observe any on-street or off-street parking issues. Further the proposal would include 4 parking spaces which the Council’s Highway Department has confirmed meets the required provision. I also consider that the HMO would not significantly increase traffic. Given the sites previous use as a dental surgery, it is likely that there would be reduction in transport movements from the property. 13. The appellant has set out that the proposal: is well located for facilities, services and public transport; will provide high quality homes; would reduce crime due to increased surveillance, would utilise an existing development site; would help to create mixed communities, would use energy efficient appliances; would be undertaken in a professional manner with the careful vetting of tenants; and would adhere to health and safety standards. Whilst I do not dispute any of the above matters, I do not consider that they individually or in combination outweigh the harm that has been identified above. Conclusion 14. I consider that the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the area, which is not outweighed by my findings in relation to the first floor extension, the living conditions of the occupants of No 57, or any other matters. For this reason and considering all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Appeal Decision APP/U3935/A/13/2207835 planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3
Posted on: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 12:13:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015