Appeal 3295506

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion and extension of existing store to form bedroom at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref. HOU/2021/0762, dated 16 December 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no 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: Location Plan ref. C.A103/2; Proposed Site Plan ref: C.A103/4; and Existing and [name] ref. C.A103/1A.

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

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. However, I have amended the description of development to that within the decision notice and appeal form as it is considered to be a more accurate reflection of the proposal.

The main issue to be considered is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area.

The appeal site is located on the corner of [address] and [address]. This section of [address] is characterised by residential properties in an elevated position to the highway. However, their setback location prevents them from appearing overbearing when viewed from the public realm. There is a notable topographic change when approaching the appeal site along [address] from the south, resulting in a pleasing stepping up of the ridge lines of dwellings. The host dwelling is a pitched roof bungalow with a single storey flat roofed store adjoining the end gable. The principal elevation is adjacent to but set back from [address] in a similar manner to the surrounding properties.

The proposal would involve the upward extension of the existing store adjoining the host dwelling to facilitate the formation of an additional bedroom. The proposal would utilise a pitched roof with materials to match that of the host dwelling.

Due to the topography of the site, the floor level of the existing store is below that of the appeal property to which it adjoins. The proposed upward extension of the store would therefore result in an increase in the built form of this end gable. Notwithstanding, the proposal would retain the footprint of the existing store which is set back from the principal elevation of the host dwelling. This would reduce its visual prominence when viewed from the public realm and retain the existing character of the appeal property. Furthermore, the height of the eaves of the proposed pitched roof would match that of the host dwelling and the ridge line would be below that of the appeal property. This would allow the proposal to remain subservient and proportionate to the host dwelling and maintain the consistent stepping up of the ridge lines along this section of [address] to the junction with [address].

For the above reasons I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or wider area. Accordingly, I find the proposal would comply with the objectives of Policy HS5 and SP5 of Burnley’s Local Plan (2018) which broadly require development to respect the existing character of the host building and area.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and a condition requiring the external materials used match that of the existing dwelling. These conditions are required to protect the character and appearance of the host building and wider area.

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

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.