Appeal 3275138

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the 2-storey side extension. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the single storey rear extension. Accordingly planning permission is granted for the single storey rear extension at [site address] , Staffordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2020/0727, dated 18 December 2020 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans as far as they relate to the works permitted: Site Plan ([name] no.) and [name] ([name] no.).

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.

I observed on my site visit that work had commenced on a single storey rear extension.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the host dwelling.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling constructed in brick with a hipped roof and an attached garage. The property is located on a triangular shape corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address] in Cellarhead. The neighbouring property at the junction, No. [address], is also detached and is set back into the plot with the front elevation being no further forward than the rear elevation of the appeal property.

It is proposed to construct a single storey rear extension and also a two-storey side extension. The Council considers the rear extension to be acceptable apart from the choice of materials. The proposed render finish would not be in keeping with the brick construction of the dwelling. I concur with the Council with regard to the principle of the rear extension. This element of the appeal scheme would comply with Policy DC1 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan and the Council’s design guidance. The proposed materials could be the subject of a condition requiring them to match the existing dwelling.

Turning to the two-storey side extension, it would project approximately 3.9 metres from the side elevation of the appeal property with a depth of around 5.6 metres. It would be set back slightly from the front elevation, be set down in height from the ridge of the main dwelling and constructed in rendered blockwork.

I note that the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘[name] in the [name] recommends that extensions should be subordinate and that they should be set down and back from the existing dwelling. Despite the lower ridge height, the minimal set back from the front elevation, coupled with the width of the extension, result in a dominant addition which would not appear subservient to the host dwelling. This would be exacerbated by the proposed render finish which would create a visually discordant extension causing harm to the character and appearance of the area. The materials could however be the subject of a condition, requiring that the proposal be constructed in brick to match the host dwelling, reducing the visual impact.

Due to the orientation of the appeal property and the set back of the neighbouring house at No.4 Southlowe, the proposed extension would be clearly visible from [address] behind the existing boundary walling and fence. I acknowledge that the proposal would be set back from the highway. However, due to its scale and projection, it would extend beyond the established building line of the existing dwelling and No.[address], appearing prominent in the street scene. This would impact negatively on the spacious and open character at this road junction.

The appellant has referred to examples of other extensions to corner properties in the locality. However, the exact addresses and details of the schemes are not specified. I am therefore unable to make an informed assessment. In any event each proposal should be considered on its merits having regard to its context.

I have found that the proposed single storey rear extension would be acceptable, causing no harm to the character and appearance of the area or the host dwelling. It would comply with Policy DC1 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan, the Council’s Staffordshire Moorlands Design Guide (Supplementary Planning Document), the Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘[name] in the [name] and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. These documents seek to achieve a high-quality design, reinforce local distinctiveness and to ensure development appropriate to the character of the area. The proposed two storey side extension however, would not be acceptable in the above terms. As the different parts of the appeal scheme are physically and functionally severable, it is open to me to issue a split decision, allowing the single storey rear extension.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. As work has commenced the standard time limit condition is not necessary. I impose a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings, where applicable, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A materials condition is also required to safeguard the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

For the reasons set out above and having had regard to all other matters raised, including the lack of objection from the occupants of neighbouring properties, I consider that the appeal should fail in respect to the two storey side extension but succeed in respect to the rear single storey extension. A split decision is therefore issued.