Inspector intervenes to allow plan for homes in Petworth

A PLAN to divide a three-bedroomed house at Rosemary Close, Petworth, to create two homes has been allowed on appeal.

The proposal for number 7 was refused by Chichester District Council.

But the arguments in the subsequent challenge found favour with a planning inspector who gave consent, subject to conditions relating to landscaping and fencing associated with the scheme, materials and bin storage areas.

The property at Rosemary Close is a three-bedroomed detached house at the western end of the cul-de-sac.

The proposal is to divide it and add a two-storey side extension to provide a one-bedroomed house and a separate two-bedroomed dwelling.

A garage and an earlier two-storey extension would be demolished.

In his report, the inspector said the main issues he had to consider were the impact on the character and appearance of the residential area, the adequacy of the amenity space to be provided for the occupiers of each dwelling and the effect on parking demand and highway safety in the close.

On the first issue, he said in terms of physical impact, the footprint of the building would only increase by some 1.4m on the northern side.

The garage already covered part of ground to be built on, and while the new two-storey element would enlarge the bulk and massing to a degree, it would not be to a substantial extent.

The design of the building as extended would respect the character of the surrounding residential area and represent an improvement in terms of overall appearance.

The inspector said planning policy guidance from the government encouraged efficient and effective use of land, especially in urban locations, and promoted a range of type and size of dwelling ‘which this proposal would deliver’.

On amenity space, the inspector ruled the garden areas intended for each dwelling were sufficient. On the issue of parking and highway safety, he noted there would be no on-site parking and existing garage space would be removed. But he did not have any evidence parking was at a premium.