Appeal 3297507

The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for proposed first floor side and rear extension with front and rear dormer window at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 21/06044/HOU dated 2 December 2021 subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 21-109-P-01, 21-109-P-04 ([name]) & 21-109-P-04 (Existing and [name] with Site Plan).

The description of the proposal has been altered from the application form to the decision notice. That on the application form adequately describes the proposal although I have omitted wording that is not a description of development. I acknowledge that the proposal includes a hip to gable roof extension.

At the time of the site visit, I noted that the hip to gable roof conversion had been carried out and that the front and rear dormer windows were under construction. Works that had been carried out appeared broadly in accordance with the plans before me, but for the avoidance of doubt my consideration has been made against the plans.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the proposed set back from the front elevation and splayed wall and roof form on the side extension.

The extension would not incorporate any substantial set back at ground floor level. However, this merely reflects the existing situation at the site where the front elevation of the existing single storey side extension sits closely to the main front elevation of the house.

The side extension would incorporate a substantial set back from the main front elevation at first floor level and the ridgeline of the extension would sit below that on the main dwelling.

The side extension would utilise the same splayed building line to the western side of the dwelling as currently utilised by the single storey side extension and given the falling land levels on [address], the existing extension already forms a prominent, well-established feature within the street-scene.

Taking account of the existing arrangement at the site, and the design features of the extension, the proposal would be subordinate to the existing dwelling and would not significantly imbalance the pair of semi-detached properties such that it would have an adverse impact on their appearance. The proposal would not appear visually incongruous and would not therefore harm the character and appearance of the area.

Subsequently, the proposal would accord with policies DS1 and DS3 of the [name] (2017) (CS) which amongst other things require proposals which achieve good design and which are appropriate to their context in terms of layout, scale, and details.

In relation to extensions to the side of a house the SPD1 suggests that two storey extensions will normally require a [site address] metre set back behind the front wall of a house. However, the use of the word normally suggests that this may not be required on all occasions and I therefore do not find conflict with SPD guidance.

The standard commencement condition should not be imposed given that the works appear to have commenced. It is necessary that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring matching materials is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

Taking all relevant matters into account, the proposal accords with the development plan and there is no indication that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore allowed.