Appeal 3311857

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for single storey front extension, and replacement of uPVC cladding to front at [site address] , Northwich, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/00132/FUL, dated 14 January 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: Location Plan; Site Plan; [name]: A101 P2 [name]; [name]: A103 P5 [name]; [name]: A103 P1 [name]; and [name]: A105 P5 [name].

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the application form and approved plans.

I have used the description from the original application form, rather than the decision notice, as there is no evidence a change was agreed.

Amended plans were received by the Council during the course of the planning application. I have determined the appeal on the same basis.

The main issue is the effect the proposed single storey front extension would have on the character and appearance of the host building and wider area.

[address] is primarily characterised by dwellings which are fairly evenly spaced and set back from the road, which give the street scene a pleasant spacious quality. The appeal property, a detached two-storey dwelling at No 38 stands in the middle of a run of three houses that appear to be versions of the same house-type. This is such that the other two houses also feature prominent projecting flat roof forms at ground floor level like the existing garage on the appeal property.

The proposed extension would be set in from the host front projecting garage. It would be articulated to be stepped in as per the existing features of the appeal dwelling. It would be subservient to the host dwelling, as it would not project beyond the existing garage and would be of relatively low height being single storey. Whilst the proposals would result in additional bulk to the front of the dwelling, the covered open area and stepped appearance would relieve some of the overall massing. The single storey extension would not obscure or overwhelm the two-storey dwelling. Nor would it be at odds with the adjacent properties as it would be similar in length to the neighbouring garage adjacent to the appeal site boundary. In this respect I find the scale to be acceptable.

There are also a number of other clearly visible front projections at ground floor level in this run of three houses and within the wider street scene, some of which appear to be original design features, while others appear to be more recent additions. Given that some of these may have been constructed using permitted development rights these may not wholly define the character of the area. However, they are present and there is a degree of variance which means that no one style predominates. In this context, given the numerous examples I observed it would sit comfortably within this wider context and within its spacious plot. The adjacent neighbouring dwellings, and the existing projecting garage element would also screen the side of the development from several view points within the street scene and thus alleviate the visual impact.

The small amount of white render proposed would not appear out of character with the area. The render here replaces a larger and more visually prominent expanse of white cladding on the host dwelling at both ground and first floor. The introduction of the new first floor window would have a limited visual effect on the appearance of the dwelling given its overall scale and the vertical emphasis of the timber cladding. The proposed extensions and alterations would to a degree re-order the appearance of the dwelling in its entirety so that the overall design is cohesive, integrating it into a varied street scene. As such the proposals would not unacceptably alter the character and appearance of the host building or that of the wider area.

I am mindful the proposed development would not fully meet the criteria in relation to front extensions within the [name] and Chester Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and [name] (January 2021) (SPD). Nonetheless, the SPD provides ‘guidance’ which allows for a degree of flexibility. In this particular instance for the reason given above I have found the proposal to be acceptable on its own merits.

I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host building and the wider area. Consequently, it would be in accordance with Policy DM3 of [name] and Chester Local Plan Part One: [name], and Policy DM21 of the [name] and Chester Local Plan ([name]) [name] and [name]. Combined, and insofar as they are relevant to the appeal these policies seek to achieve a high standard of design that respects the character and appearance of, and is subordinate to, the original dwelling and surrounding properties, and the wider area.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions. I have imposed the standard commencement of development condition and the condition specifying the approved plans in the interests of certainty. The condition relating to external materials is necessary in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal accords with the development plan read as a whole. Therefore, having regard to all matters raised, the appeal is allowed.