Appeal 3275944

The appeal is allowed and planning permission for loft conversion including hip to gable roof alterations, rear dormer window, front rooflights, two storey side extension with associated alterations to garage and single rear extension at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/0648/FUL, dated 11 March 2021, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: LXA-2279-100-EX, LXA-2279-101-[name], LXA-2279-102-[name], LXA-2279-103-[name], LXA-2279-104-EX, LXA-2279-201-[name], LXA-2279-202-[name], LXA-2279-203-[name] and LXA-2279-204.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

Before the first use of the extension hereby permitted, the window in the western flank elevation shall be obscured glazed and only open at a height of 1.7m above the floor level of the room in which it is installed in. The window shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

For the purposes of my Decision, I have taken the description of the proposed development from the Council’s decision, as this more accurately describes the proposal as shown on the submitted drawings.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Based on the submitted drawings, the proposal includes a two-storey side extension which incorporates a gabled roof form and rear dormer.

Whilst there are no properties with full width gable roof extensions over a side extension on [address], there are properties with these type of extensions in the area. Some of these properties also incorporate rear dormer extensions. Also, hip to gable conversions are not an uncommon form of development in the area. Indeed, there is one such conversion along [address].

In terms of its scale, the proposed two-storey side extension is of similar proportions to the side extension which has already been approved at the appeal property (Ref 20/2725/FUL), albeit with a hipped roof. The proposed dormer would be set down from the ridge of the roof and set in from its sides making this a subordinate addition.

Also, the roof of the adjoining property has been altered through the addition of a dormer and the approved two-storey, side extension at the appeal property was under construction at the time of my visit. As such, the original symmetry associated with these properties has been eroded and the proposal would not unacceptably change this.

Moreover, the appeal property is the end dwelling along the southern side of [address] and occupies a more generous plot than other dwellings along this road. Due to the adjacent pair of garages, the extent of development near the appeal property is also limited. These site-specific factors would further assist in accommodating the scale and form of the proposal at this location, whilst the use of matching materials would allow it to assimilate with the appeal property and street scene.

The proposed rooflights and rear extension are also acceptable in terms of siting and appearance.

Drawing on the above reasons, I do not consider the proposal to be uncharacteristic for the area or a disproportionate addition. Furthermore, having regard to the context of the area and the site-specific circumstances of the appeal site, the proposal would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area.

As such, the proposal is not contrary to Policy CP12 of the [name], adopted October 2011, Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document, adopted July 2013 and Policy CA2 and [name] and C of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version, adopted December 2018. Together, these policies seek to ensure that new developments have regard to the local context and conserve or enhance the character, amenities and quality of an area.

I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council in the light of the requirements of the national Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework,

In addition to the standard condition which limits the lifespan of the planning permission, I have also specified the approved plans as this provides certainty. A condition requiring matching materials is necessary in the interests of the appearance of the development. To safeguard the privacy of neighbours, I have specified a condition relating to the opening and glazing for the window proposed along the western flank elevation of the extension.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) are sufficient to safeguard neighbours from overlooking and loss of privacy arising from any additional windows/dormers. Accordingly, a specific condition precluding such additions is not necessary.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.