Appeal 3308117

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor rear extension to dwelling (retrospective) and proposed changes to external finishing materials at [site address] , Buckinghamshire, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/22/1822/FA, dated 20 May 2022.

In the interests of clarity, in the banner heading above I have referred to the description of the proposal given by the appellant on the appeal form as this gives a clear description of the development which reflects that used by the Council in their decision notice.

I note that the application has been submitted retrospectively. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a semi detached house on the busy A413 [site address] . An access road runs along the side of the property serving a small business estate at the rear. The house has been substantially altered with a hip to gable loft extension, rear dormer, and the first floor rear extension subject of this appeal. Only the hip to gable extension is visible from the street. At the time of my visit the gable end and rear of the house were covered in grey timber cladding.

Both parties have referred to the rear dormer raising the issue of whether it benefits from permitted development rights. However, that development is not part of the application that was refused and is not therefore for consideration under this appeal. Nonetheless, I have considered the impact of the first floor extension in combination with the rear dormer because it is in situ. However, that should not be interpreted as a judgement on the merits of that element of the building.

The first floor extension projects out from the rear dormer. The roof is hipped with the eaves and ridge height extending from below that of the main house and the rear dormer. As such, it is subservient and does not dominate the rear of the house.

The Council acknowledges that it is modest in scale but are concerned that in combination with other extensions it would appear disproportionate and out of place. However, the rear dormer is the dominant feature on the rear of the house because it projects out across most of the rear roof plane. Also, the incongruity of the grey timber cladding draws attention to it. The first floor extension to an extent breaks up the bulky appearance of the rear dormer and the proposal to replace the timber boarding with off white render, matching that of the main house, would further enable it to integrate with the host property.

Overall, I am satisfied that the development is not so incongruous or out of proportion that it harms the appearance of the building and area to such a degree that warrants withholding planning permission, particularly as it would not be visible from the street. The development therefore complies with Policies GC1, H13, and H15 of The Chiltern Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) ([name] 2007 & November 2011) (LP); Policy CS20 of The Core Strategy for Chiltern District (2011) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) which require first floor rear extensions to have hipped roofs, to respect the scale and proportion of the host building and have no adverse effect on the street scene. Policy H16 of the LP is not directly relevant as it seeks to prevent extensions leading to a terracing effect which is avoided by the access road providing a gap between the appeal site and the neighbouring house.