Appeal 3307670

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a two storey front, side and rear extensions and a loft conversion with dormers to side and rear at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 22/01233, dated 22 June 2022, 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: [name] - Elevations and Location Plan ref: 2022-048 dated 23/05/2022; [name] – Elevations – Block Plan ref: 2022-048(2) rev3 dated 23/05/2022.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed extensions to No. 84 upon the appearance of the street scene.

The appeal dwelling, No. [site address] , is a semi-detached 2 storey house in a group of 3 pairs of semi-detached houses. As built, the 6 houses appeared to have been uniformly hipped roofed equally spaced houses. Substantial alterations and additions to Nos. 80, 82 and 86 subsequently lost much of that uniformity, particularly caused by the reduction in the gap between Nos. 80 and 82 and by the changes in roof structures and form.

The resistance by the Council to the appeal proposed extensions to No. 84 would seem to come too late to avert changes that have, effectively, taken place, whether by the implementation of permitted development rights or other permissions. In view of the present position, I do not accept the view of the Council that the Appellants’ proposal would result in an incongruous, prominent feature when viewed from [address]. The “terracing” effect that worried the Council caused by the widened frontage to the house as proposed would not, as the Council suggested significantly reduce the gap between the adjoining dwelling such as to create a terracing effect through a visual coalescence. An open gap of almost 1m to the shared boundary with No. 86 would remain, as would a further larger gap to the side wall of No. 86. The small reduction in the gap between Nos. 84 and 86 would not, in my view, be significantly detrimental.

As to the Council’s concern that there would be an unbalancing impact upon the adjoining semi-detached dwelling, the hipped roof at No. 86 has been replaced by a hip to gable roof extension. The appeal project would match that by building a gable wall facing the side of No. 86. In my view, the appeal scheme would produce no significant detriment to the street scene.

Although the Council’s objections referred to what they saw as consequent non-compliance with a number of local and national policies drawn up to ensure the application of sound design principles, it follows from my conclusion on the merits of the appeal that there is no policy objection to granting planning permission for the No. 84 improvement scheme.

In concluding that planning permission should be granted for the appeal extension, I note that no adverse effects on neighbouring houses’ amenities were identified. For the reasons given above, the appeal succeeds. The general condition limiting the duration of the permission is applied, (s.91 of the Act), as is a condition defining the amended scheme.