Appeal 3299609

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side and single-storey front extension to the existing property, with one additional car parking space added to the existing driveway at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 22/00228/HOU, dated 2 February 2022, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.

[address] leads from [address] into a mature residential estate comprised of a mixture of semi-detached brick-built two-storey dwellings and largely semi-detached bungalows. At its southern end, [address] forms a loop and the appeal property, which is a semi-detached dwelling, stands on one of the corners forming the loop. The property is slightly elevated above the highway, and the whole length of its western frontage displays a tall, mature cupressus leylandii hedge.

The intention is to build a two storey extension between the dwelling’s gabled end and the highway. A single storey extension forming a porch would wrap around at the front.

The extension’s footprint would be indented at the corner. The effect of this would be to effectively break up the perceived mass of the two storey extensions at its western end. The extension’s main ridge would be set at a lower level than that of the dwelling, as would its eaves, so as to successfully achieve subservience. As the appellant points out, the proposal’s scale and design is not dissimilar to another scheme in the street recently granted planning permission by the Council1.

To my mind, the extensions have been thoughtfully designed, complementing the design of the host property. Whilst the extended dwelling would stand closer to the highway making it more prominent than the existing, the resultant development in view of its acceptable, proportionate design design would sit comfortably in its visual and spatial context. [name] do not entirely share the appellant’s optimism on the retention of some parts of the mature hedge, most of it would be retained along the western frontage so as to provide, as now, a level of screening.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not materially harm the character and appearance of the host property or its surroundings. Accordingly, I find no conflict with those provisions of policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032, policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006, or policy 2 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan requiring new development to be sensitive to its surroundings, in keeping with local character and proportionate to the scale and character of surrounding buildings.

In the interests of visual amenity, I shall impose the Council’s suggested condition in respect of external materials.

It is also necessary, in the interests of certainty that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

The Council’s suggested condition in respect of parking shall be imposed in the interests of highway safety, albeit in a slightly modified form.

I have taken account of all other matters raised in the representations including the objection made by the Parish Council. I disagree with them on the design issue for the reasons set out above, and I share the Local Planning Authority’s view that the parking arrangements are acceptable. No other matter raised outweighs those considerations which led me to my conclusions.