Appeal 3285966

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the demolition of a flint and brick garden wall and the construction of a single storey extension to the main house to form an enlarged kitchen and associated dining area and partial rebuilding of the external wall at [site address] , [site address] , Stambourne, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application 21/02538/HH, dated 11 August 2021, and subject to the following conditions: i)The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision. ii)The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: submitted location plan; Roof Plan - Plan Ref: 07; [name] - Plan Ref: 08; Proposed Block Plan - Plan Ref: 17; Proposed Ground Floor Plan - Plan Ref: 25; [name] - Plan Ref: 19.

[name] 2021, the Council adopted the Braintree District Shared Strategic Section 1 Plan (LP) which superseded policies CS1, CS4, CS9 and CS11 of the Braintree District Council Core Strategy 2011 (CS). The local planning authority (LPA) has referred in its decision notice to the draft Braintree Local Plan, Section 2 (DLP) which has yet to complete its examination in public and is not therefore an adopted policy document. I therefore afford it limited weight. Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/D/21/3285966

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the dwelling and the locality.

The appeal property is a large, two storey detached house in a countryside setting with a plentiful amount of amenity space around it. It has been previously extended to include a single-storey addition which includes a swimming pool. The original dwelling is built with cream rendered walls under a slate roof which includes hipped gables.

The building is not listed or within a Conservation Area and I have no information before me to indicate that the surrounding area has any special landscape protection.

The proposed extension would be single storey with a depth of approximately 8.5 metres and a width of 10.5 metres. Its height would be significantly below that of the main dwelling. The extension would not be readily visible from the public realm and its size would not be disproportionate to the original or existing dwelling and would be subordinate to it. However, these factors do not obviate the need for good design.

The design of the roof profile is the result of a careful analysis of the existing dwelling and its extensions. I find that the use of a pitched roof, albeit it at a different angle to the other roofs to the dwelling, would not be inappropriate in this instance, given its relatively small size in relation to the existing building and the different roof angles already present. [name] consider that the use of zinc for the roof, given its mid grey colour, would not contrast adversely with the existing roof materials. I find that these matters and all other aspects of the proposed extension would be appropriate to the character and appearance of the dwelling and that of the wider area.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with policies RLP18 and RLP90 of the Braintree Local Plan Review2005 (LPR), CS policy CS5 and chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021, all of which stress the need for good design and also which is suitable for, and reflective of, the rural surroundings in which they are located.

I have imposed the standard time condition and a condition to ensure the development is in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.