Appeal 3304886

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing detached garage. Construction of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension. Loft conversion with rear dormer window, at [site address] , Nottingham [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/00553/FUL, dated 17 March 2022, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development in the banner heading is taken from the application form. I have amended the description in the formal decision to match the one used on the appeal form and on the Council’s decision notice, as this is more concise.

The parties agree that the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently, I have not considered this matter further.

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

The appeal property is situated within a row of twenty semi-detached houses, accessed via a gently curving, unsurfaced shared access road, which runs parallel to the A60, [address]. There is a landscaped buffer between the two roads, and the dwellings are set back behind long front gardens, many of which are bound by trees and hedges. These factors restrict the visibility of the houses from both the main road and the shared access road.

The properties in the immediate area, whilst not identical, would originally have been very similar in terms of scale, design, roof form and materials. However, over time, they have been altered and extended in varying ways and to varying degrees.

Except for neighbouring No.210, which has a hip to gable roof extension containing a large flat roof rear dormer, all of the houses in the immediate area have retained their original hipped roof form. The original spaces between the pairs of semi’s, have been infilled by a variety of single storey and two-storey side extensions, of differing scale and design. Most of these side extensions are constructed up to the site boundaries of the properties, and as such, have been set back and/or set down, in order to avoid creating a terracing effect.

The proposed two-storey side extension would be set in from the boundary by just under one metre. It would be less than half the width of the original dwelling at its widest point and would retain the original hipped roof form. The scale of the extension would not dominate the property, and the design would reflect that of the host dwelling. Consequently, although the space between Nos. 208 and 210 would be further reduced, a terracing effect would be avoided.

The single storey rear extension would be a continuation of the existing one. This aligns with and matches the rear extension of the adjoining property (No.206). The proposed dormer window, although large, would have a pitched roof and would not fill the whole of the rear roof slope. [name].210 has a similarly large dormer window. These alterations to the rear of the property would not be visible in the street scene and do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal.

I therefore conclude that the proposed extensions and alterations would reflect the character and appearance of the immediate streetscene, and accordingly, would accord with Policy 10 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1 [name] (December 2014) and Policy 1 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 Land and Planning Policies (October 2019), which seek, amongst other things, to ensure that the scale, height, massing, design and materials of new development is sympathetic to the character and appearance of neighbouring buildings and the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposal accords with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reference is made by the Council to a residential design guide. I have not been provided with a copy of this or been informed of its status. [name] have found that the proposal would not conflict with the relevant policies in the development plan or the National Planning Policy Framework, it is unlikely that this supplementary guidance would have altered my decision.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition listing the approved drawing numbers for the avoidance of doubt. A condition to ensure the external materials of the side and rear extensions match those used in the existing dwelling, is necessary to ensure a satisfactory end appearance. Likewise, as the materials to be used in the rear dormer have not been confirmed, a condition is necessary to ensure that these are agreed with the Council, prior to the construction of the dormer.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

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: [name]. 001560:01 Rev P2, 001560:06 Rev P4, 001560:07 Rev P3, 001560:08 Rev P3, 001560:09 Rev P2, 001560:10 Rev P1 and 001560:11 Rev P1.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the side and rear extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The colour and materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dormer window hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to its construction. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.