Appeal 6003003

The appeal is dismissed.

My site visit was scheduled as an access required site visit, although I was not able to proceed on that basis. However, I was able to consider the main issues based on seeing the site and its surrounding context from public areas and as such my visit was carried out on an unaccompanied basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • character and appearance of the host building and area: and • the living conditions of [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal dwelling is set in a terraced arrangement along [address]. The properties are tall with gable outrigger extensions which are shared with one adjoining neighbour, leaving a gap with the other. The land levels of the area rise up with the terrace which is reflected in the stepped appearance of the dwellings and associated gable outriggers which provides rhythm and consistency in the appearance of the terrace which positively contributes to the character of the area. Whilst the rear of the properties along [address] have been subject to various extensions, nevertheless the stepped height and pitched gable outriggers remain broadly consistent across the properties. To the rear of the terrace lies a public right of way which allows for direct views of the rear of the terrace.

The proposal would add a flat roof extension along with additional walls enclosing a flat roof area set on top of the existing outrigger. The proposal would represent a fairly modest increase in the overall floor area of the building and would retain the facing gable of the outrigger. However, this additional storey of development above the roofline of the existing outrigger would nevertheless harmfully disrupt the regular stepped heights of the terrace and result in an unbalanced appearance with the other half of the outrigger extension. In addition, the flat roof design and the form of the extension set on top of the pitched roof would be distinctly out of keeping with the appearance of the other pitched roofs of the rear outrigger elevations. As such, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host building and area.

The proposed materials comprise light coloured brickwork which the appellant contends would reflect the original base material of the properties. However, it would contrast with the painted rendered finish of the properties within the terrace. As such, these contrasting materials would highlight the incongruous nature of the proposed extension with the host property and wider terrace.

The identified harm would occur despite the principal façade remaining unchanged by the proposal, and the property itself not being a listed building nor being located within a conservation area.

I note the appeal scheme has sought to address a number of criticisms of the inspector who dismissed the previous proposal1, including through the reduction in the overall bulk and massing of the proposal, the removal of the dormer element and retention of the facing gable of the outrigger. However, this does not negate the harm that would be caused by the poor design aspects of the proposal before me that I have identified.

It has been brought to my attention that a number of the properties within Linton Crescent2 have been subject to extensions and alterations to the outriggers. However, in these cases they retain a more integrated appearance and do not share the same flat roof design as the appeal before me, which I have found to be harmful owing to distinct scheme specific design matters. As such, the existence of these examples would not mitigate, or otherwise justify the specific harm resulting from the design of the proposal that I have identified.

The appellant has suggested that the public footpath traffic is between 70 – 80 people per day, and that in the summer months there would be greater leaf coverage of the trees reducing views into the site. Nevertheless, the harm resulting from the proposal would be visible from public vantage points. In addition, the harm would also be perceptible from public views of the neighbouring private amenity areas within the terrace as well as from the public views.

The proposal would therefore result in considerable harm to the character and appearance of the host building and area. It would therefore conflict with Policy DM1 of the Hastings Development Management Plan (2015) (LP). This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that proposals reach a good standard of design that protects and enhances local character.

No 9 is situated adjacent to the appeal site and does not share an outrigger extension with the appeal building. Whilst the proposal would introduce an 1 PINS ref APP/B1415/D/24/3353043 2 Nos 6, 12, 13, 19 and 23 extension and brick wall above the roofline of the existing outrigger, due to the separation from the boundary and the associated windows with No 9 this distance would be sufficient to ensure that the proposal would not overbear on this neighbour causing a loss of outlook. In these circumstances, the proposal would therefore not result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 9.

The proposal would therefore comply with Policy DM3 of the LP. This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that development achieves a good standard of living for neighbours of proposed developments.

The appellant has raised concern regarding the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is a matter that lies outside the scope of my determination as it does not affect the planning merits of the proposal.

The appellant has referred to an example planning permission granted by the Council in [address] which they consider to be approximately 2.5 times larger than the appeal proposal. However, only a reference has been provided3 and no detailed evidence such as the address of the site, plans or a decision notice is before me. I therefore cannot be certain of the circumstances of this permission and if it is comparable to the appeal before me. It would therefore not carry any positive weight for the proposal.

Interested parties have referred to a commitment from the government to make it easier to build and change floor plans of dwellings. Nevertheless, each proposal should still be assessed on its individual merits which I have done so in this case, where I have identified harm based on the specific scheme before me.

The proposal would improve the living conditions of the occupiers of the appeal property by providing additional floor space, in particular providing an additional toilet and shower space for the occupants. However, this is a personal benefit of the scheme, and it therefore attracts limited weight in favour of the development. In addition, the proposal would provide a green roof which would have environmental and ecological benefits. There would also be some small and time-limited economic benefits from the construction stage. However, given the small scale of the development this would only attract limited positive weight. These other matters do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.