Appeal 3290021

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey front extension, a two storey front extension, a single storey rear extension and demolition of the existing garage at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref.21/02660/FUL, dated 16 August 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 strict accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan ([name] extract), Existing and [name] and Elevations, Typical Section and Proposed Roof Plan, Scales 1:50 & 1:100 (undated).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the main dwelling.

The single storey rear extension applied for in the application appears to be an existing extension which is in poor repair. I have treated this part of the application/appeal as if it had not been built and was applied for on its merits as part of the appeal.

The description of development proposed in the box heading above has been taken from the Council’s Notice of Decision dated 14th December 2021 and not from the Planning Application Form. The former description is more accurate and accords with the submitted plans. In addition, I have added “demolition of the existing garage” to the Council’s description for the avoidance of doubt.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding streetscenes.

The appeal site is a detached two storey dwelling with attached garage located on the corner of [address] and [address] in a predominantly residential area. It sits back in its plot diagonally across the corner, leaving a small triangular rear garden. The house faces south-east. The garage is attached to its western flank adjacent to [address]. The road widths at the junction are relatively spacious. The property has a small brick wall around its frontage.

The dwelling has a single storey ground floor side extension on its north-eastern flank with a flat roof.

The proposed development includes demolishing the existing garage and leaving that land free from built development other than a fence, a single storey front extension about 2m deep, and a two storey front extension with a pitched roof set lower than the main ridge.

Dealing first with the rear extension, this would be a simple single storey addition with a monopitch roof and would not extend along the full width of the main rear elevation. It would be a subservient addition and would not cause any detrimental amenity issues for neighbours. Whilst the garden at the rear would be small, this would be compensated for by the land on which the existing garage stands being available for amenity purposes.

The proposed front extension would be made up of extending the single storey north-eastern element forwards by about 2m. It would remain single storey and have a front-facing dummy pitched roof to a modest height. The proposed two storey extension would protrude a further circa 1.7m and would include bay windows at ground and first floor levels. It would have a pitched roof set lower than the ridge of the main roof. 10.Whilst front extensions are generally discouraged in local policy, the location and orientation of the appeal site in this particular case allows the proposed development to take place without undue harm to the existing house or character or appearance of the streetscene. The resulting appearance of the dwelling would be balanced with two pairs of stacked bay windows and the roof ridge of the main dwelling remaining dominant. Whilst it would have a more vertical emphasis this would not be detrimental. The proposed new front elements would extend a part of the dwelling which currently steps back from the main frontage and porch and can take advantage of the generous area of land in front of the existing dwelling. 11.The north-eastern single storey element would remain single storey and subservient. Owing to the orientation of the house in a south-easterly direction, the extension would not detrimentally affect the appearance of no.[address]. The streetscene of [address] would be improved by the removal of the garage as it would create a more spacious appearance making the appeal property look less squeezed into its plot than it currently appears. The resulting development would be more prominent but it is currently a prominent property and the increased prominence would not be of such a degree to harm the streetscene particularly as the area of land at the front of the dwelling within its curtilage would remain generous. On-site parking would continue to be possible. 12.I conclude that the proposed development would not unduly harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the wider area. It would not conflict with policy CS01 of the [name] (adopted 2012) or policies ENV39 and H9 of the Bexley Unitary Development Plan (adopted 2004).

I have considered the imposition of planning conditions in the light of advice in National Planning Practice Guidance. The Council suggested some conditions in the event that the appeal was successful. A condition which ties the built development to the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. In order to protect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings a condition requiring the extension to match the existing materials of the dwelling is necessary.

Having taken into account all representations made, for the reasons given above, I allow the appeal and grant planning permission subject to conditions. [name].C.