Appeal 3290414

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor extension over existing car port at [site address] , Baston [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref S21/1863, dated 4 October 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. 2) The proposal will be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan:AW-PR-PL-10 and constructed in the materials appearing thereon.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the area and upon living conditions of neighbouring users.

The application site lies within an area of largely two-storey detached suburban housing built within recent decades to an informal layout intended to optimise use of land whilst providing a satisfactory separation between dwellings.

The proposed development is described as a first-floor extension which presumes, and drawings indicate, the retention of the existing lightly-built carport structure beneath a first floor side extension employing similar construction to that of the original, but extended, house. What is proposed would almost double the width of the original house at first floor level. The result would be an upper storey gable wall of brick construction seemingly jettied from the existing flank wall to the plot perimeter. The result would be to further enclose the frontages to the adjacent dwellings, 3 and [address] at a separation distance below that guided in the Council’s Design Guidelines SPD1. 1 [name] for Rutland and [name] (adopted November 2021)

The appellant draws attention to the lack of objection from neighbours. The effect of the proposal would be limited to frontages and driveway of adjacent dwellings, also, from my observations, adequate opportunity for daylight and sunlight would remain for those dwellings due to their angled configuration and relative openness on the southern side of the affected area. Consequently, due to the limited harm arising, the breach of separation guideline should attract little weight. In terms of character and appearance, the resulting continuous ridge and unusual structural arrangement for the extension would be uncharacteristic. However, where there is consistency of materials and form with the host building, which can be secured by condition, the result would not adversely impact a street-scene which has a degree of informality as to layout and some variety in building form and appearance.

Although the Council refer to the duty set out in Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990), no harm to the significance of the referred heritage assets is alleged to arise from the proposal. My observations lead me to concur with that position and therefore my overall conclusion, taking all matters raised into account and for the reasons given, is that the benefit of providing some additional accommodation is not outweighed by the harms alleged. In consequence the proposal would not conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and the appeal succeeds subject to conditions necessary to ensure consistency of appearance with the host building.