Appeal 3294903

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear and side extension, at Chaworth, [site address] , Watnall [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/00495/FUL, dated 7 June 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 accordance with the following approved plans: CHAWORTH-IDS-Q107-DR-A-05-10- 001 (Site Location Plan); CHAWORTH-IDS-Q107-DR-A-05-10-002 (Existing Block Plan); CHAWORTH-IDS-Q107-DR-A-05-10-003A (Block Plan); CHAWORTH-IDS-Q107-DR-A-05-10-004A ([name]) CHAWORTH-IDS-Q107-DR-A-05-10-005D (Proposed Floor Plan); Unnumbered Plan (Section A-A, Plan View and [name]).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those indicated on the approved plans.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, in [name] of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, a different wording has been entered. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application.

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

The appeal relates to a bungalow located at the start of a short, private, unmade lane leading from a bend in the road on [site address] on the north-eastern edge of Watnall. The bungalow is surrounded by residential development to the north and west on [address] and [address], and to the south by other dwellings on the private lane.

The bungalow is modest in design, having a simple rectangular form, dual pitched roof and front gable, though a notable feature is a full height chimney stack to the front corner. A flat roofed extension exists to the rear. It is proposed to erect flat-roofed extensions to either side of the dwelling. Both would wrap around the existing rear elevation, incorporating the existing single storey extension, but separated at the rear by a central lightwell. The rear hipped form of the roof would also be replaced by a gable, and the front elevation would be redesigned with timber cladding.

The Council points to the dwelling matching the consistent form of the bungalows in [address], which it argues would be lost as a result of the proposal. The bungalow does reflect the general size and shape of the dwellings on [address], but it is not actually part of the adjacent estate, being orientated in the opposite direction towards [site address] , set at a slightly different angle and, notably, being physically separated from the estate road by boundary fencing. The appeal dwelling also has a slightly different roof shape and brick detailing to the corners which is not seen to the neighbouring dwellings, as well as greater use of render to the elevations.

Given this context, the proposed extensions would not upset a visibly consistent pattern of development. [address], the boundary fencing would offer substantial screening of the massing of the extensions, such that they would not form obvious features of the street scene that would disrupt its rhythm. If anything, the introduction of a rear gable above the extensions would increase the consistency of the rooflines in longer views along [address].

The dwelling would be most visible on approach along [site address] from the north-east. From here, the extensions would add significantly to its footprint, and would effectively result in a wholly redesigned dwelling in a contemporary style, with expansive flat roofs; white rendered walls, feature cladding to the front elevation and full height glazing. However, the dwelling already differs in its use of rendered walls, and whilst the proposal would be a further departure in design terms, it would not be seen as part of a continuous pattern of development from [site address] , as the dwellings on [address] are screened by roadside trees and hedgerows, and the adjacent dwelling on the private lane is set a significant distance back into its plot and out of view. As such, the appeal dwelling would be seen mainly by itself in passing views from [site address] and would not harmfully disrupt a consistent pattern of development or appear as an incongruous addition to the street scene.

The extensions would increase the overall scale of the dwelling, but I saw the dwellings to the rear of the site had substantial footprints. I also saw that the adjacent dwelling, [address], has extended up to the boundary with the appeal site. This aside, the dwelling would retain the low overall height of a bungalow and it sits on a larger plot than dwellings in [address]. Having observed the site, I am content that the resulting dwelling would not appear excessive in overall size or squeezed onto the site in a cramped manner, with sufficient space retained to the front and rear.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the area, and would accord with Policy 10 of the [name] 1 Local Plan (September 2014) and Policy 17 of the [name] 2 Local Plan (October 2019) which together require development to, amongst other things, make a positive contribution to the public realm and sense of place; integrate into its surroundings and, in the case of extensions, to be of a size, siting and design that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The council did not refuse the proposal in respect of the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. The extensions would be single storey and, as noted above, the adjacent dwelling has itself extended to the side boundary. On the evidence before me and my observations on site of the proposed size and positions of the extensions, I do not conclude differently to the Council in this matter.

To provide certainty, a condition is required specifying the relevant drawings. It is also necessary to impose a condition requiring external surface materials to reflect those set out on the submitted plans, in order to secure a satisfactory appearance.

The proposal would accord with the development plan, taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate that permission should nevertheless be withheld. The appeal is therefore allowed.