Appeal 3277430

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey extension at [site address] , Oakham, Rutland, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2021/0147/FUL, dated 5 February 2021, subject to the following conditions

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; [name] and [name] (drawing number: 21/1144/01); [name] (drawing number: 21/1144/02a); [name] (drawing number: 21/1144/04).

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.

Since the submission of the appellant’s appeal the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published and came into force on 20 July 2021. In light of this I have sought the views of the main parties in writing and comments received have been taken into consideration.

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

The area surrounding the appeal site is characterised predominantly by two storey semi-detached properties on a 1970’s residential estate. The built form in the area is mixed with properties on different size plots including the appeal site which is described as having a site boundary on an angle relative to the house. There are also variations in the styles of the properties with some having later additions, including the appeal property and nearby dwellings. It is this mix of built form and styles which contributes positively to the character of the area.

The proposed extension would have a ridgeline set down from the ridgeline of the main roof and the roof of the previous extension. The proposal would also be set back from the front building line of the property. In this regard, the proposal would appear as a subservient addition and not an incongruous feature within the street scene.

The proposal would abut the boundary of the site however given the angle of the boundary and position of the proposal, it would only be the corner of the extension that abuts the boundary. There would be space between the extension and the boundary to ensure that the proposal would not appear squeezed onto the site.

Due to the design, position and proximity of the proposal to the boundary, the extension would not be overdevelopment of the site and would blend in with the existing styles and built form of the surrounding area.

Accordingly, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would accord with Policy CS19 of the [name] 2011, Policy SP15 of the Rutland Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document 2014, the Rutland Supplementary Planning Document Extensions to Dwellings 2015 and the Framework which seeks all new development to contribute positively to local distinctiveness and expect to meet requirements for good design.

Conditions relating to timeliness and the identification of plans are necessary in the interests of proper planning and to provide certainty. In the interests of character and appearance, a condition is imposed in relation to materials.

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