Appeal 3285503

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for raising the roof and dormer extensions at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2021/0902, dated 28 June 2021, and the plans submitted with it, 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: 19-57 [name]. 01 [name].

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 and the dormer window shall be faced in materials with a similar visual appearance to those used in the roof of the existing dwelling.

The proposal was described in the application form as a ‘roof modification’. The Council altered that description in the decision notice to ‘raising of the roof and dormer extensions’. It is not clear if they sought the appellant’s agreement to the change in description, as is required. Nonetheless, the revised description more accurately describes the nature of the proposed development and I have used that description in my formal decision, above.

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

The appeal site relates to a bungalow at [address] in Darton which forms part of a development of similarly designed properties, three of which front onto [address] with the rest on [address]. Due to the arrangement and topography, the appeal property and its neighbours at either side have greater visual association with [address] than [address].

Whilst there is a high degree of consistency in the design of the three bungalows a defining characteristic of [address] in the wider context is the variety of housing design. Running up from the junction with [address] there is a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings, including bungalows, of different style and age. As one moves past the appeal site the character is slightly more rural with agricultural land on one side of the road and a run of larger, individually designed, dwellings on the other.

In the context of such variety in the wider street scene, a reduction in the consistency shown between the three bungalows would not, of itself, be harmful to the wider character of the area. The dwellings are of utilitarian design with no distinctive features of architectural merit such that change would not necessarily be harmful providing it is carefully designed. In that respect the proposed extension would be well balanced with a slightly steeper roof pitch and dormer window in the side wing, set well back from the carriageway. The dormer would not be unduly wide, would be set behind the eaves and in from the sides of the roof, with a pitched roof, all in line with good design principles. I noted similar dormer windows elsewhere on [address] and the feature would not be prominent or out of place. The overall result would be a well-proportioned dwelling.

Whilst it would appear larger than its neighbours that would not be unusual in the wider context where dwellings of a range of style and size sit next to one another. The dwelling is on a reasonably sized plot such that the enlarged property would not appear cramped or unduly dominant. Moreover, the increase in height would be modest and, whilst larger than its neighbours, the extended dwelling would not appear excessively large in the wider streetscape. It would retain the character of a chalet style bungalow which would be appropriate to the surrounding context of modern development.

Consequently, the proposed design would be acceptable in the particular context of the wider street scene and surrounding area. Whilst it would erode the consistent scale in the run of bungalows not all change is harmful and the proposal in this instance would be of an appropriate scale and design, for the reasons set out above. In those respects, the development would conform to the design principles set out in the [address] Extensions and Other Domestic Alterations Supplementary Planning Guidance (2019) which requires, amongst other things, that development is of a scale appropriate to the existing building and should maintain the character of the street scene.

It would also represent good design in accordance with the aims of policies SD1, GD1 and D1 of the Barnsley Local Plan (2019) and the design related aims of section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Council was satisfied that the proposal would not impact unduly on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Given the moderate extent of the increase in ridge height and the orientation of the dwellings I am satisfied that the proposal would not increase overshadowing into the side facing kitchen window of the adjacent dwelling to an extent that would warrant planning permission being withheld.

In addition to the standard commencement condition the Council has requested that conditions be attached to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and to ensure that matching materials are used in the extension and dormer window. Those conditions are necessary in the interests of certainty and to ensure that the appearance of the proposal is satisfactory.

[name] recognise that the proposal would result in a change to the character of the run of bungalows I am satisfied that change would not be harmful having regard to the design of the scheme and to the wider context which contains significant variety in design. For those reasons, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted, subject to the conditions set out in my