Appeal 3292461

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the removal of detached garage building, part single storey, part two storey side extension, new porch/single storey front extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/01450/FULH, dated 1 October 2021, subject to the following conditions:

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

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: - • 1:1250 Location Plan • [name]: 3443 PPL2 C

I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a semi-detached house in a residential area. The adjacent dwelling, No 14 is a detached bungalow and there is a substantial gap between Nos 14 and 16. The attached semi-detached house, No 18, has a front extension.

Core Strategy1 Policy UD 1 sets out a list of design principles which new development should adhere to. The list includes, respecting and enhancing local character. Amongst other things, the Council Residential Design Guide2 advises on domestic extensions and indicates that the Council will assess proposals on the basis of the appearance of the house to be extended and the character and appearance of neighbouring properties and the street scene as a whole, amongst other things. It also provides specific advice for side and front extensions.

I note that a more recent planning application to extend No 16 has been approved3. From the information submitted this seems to be approximately 700mm narrower than the appeal proposal. The approved scheme includes the front projection. Whilst the [name] states that front extensions will not generally be acceptable, in this case the attached house has a front extension and the appeal site itself has a front porch. In any case, this element seems to have been accepted on the later approved scheme and I find no harm arising from this element to either the house itself, the pair of semi-detached houses or the street scene generally.

The Design Guide indicates that as a ‘rule of thumb’, side extensions should not increase the width of the existing house by more than 50%. The approved scheme seems to fall within this whilst the appeal scheme would not. However, this figure is a guide only and due to the design of the proposed extension and the space between No 16 and No 14, the additional width beyond that approved would not appear out of character with the existing house. It would not appear overly large nor would it be an unsympathetic addition. I do not consider therefore that it would conflict with the objectives of the [name] or Policy UD 1.

The Council suggest conditions in relation to materials and the submitted plans which I have considered in the light of the Planning Practice Guidance4. It is necessary that the front and side extension is constructed in material to match the existing house in the interest of ensuring a satisfactory appearance. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning it is also necessary to ensure that the proposal is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

I have considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would not conflict with Policy UD 1 or the objectives of the [name]. The appeal therefore succeeds.