Appeal 3312780

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of conservatory and erection of single storey rear extension, extension to detached garage and associated works at [site address] , Hale, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application ref 107201/HHA/22, dated 10 February 2022, and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 00110 [name]; 00210 [name]; 00800 [name]; 00102 [name].

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building, unless details indicated in the application indicate otherwise.

The property lies within the South Hale Conservation Area. Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on decision makers with respect to any buildings or land within a conservation area, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

Accordingly, the main issue in this case is whether or not the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the South Hale Conservation Area.

The Conservation Area Appraisal 2017 sets out that the special interest of the South Hale Conservation Area is derived from several elements including the variety of architectural styes and the high level of architectural integrity and detail, and is enhanced by its spaciousness, the mature landscaping and the compatibility of natural and man-made features. The appellant’s heritage assessment notes that ‘the scale, height, mass, design, and playful elevations of the early 20th century buildings in Park Road are reflective of the social period in which they were built and are positive attributes in the overall context of the area’.

Within that context, the appeal property, a well-preserved brick-built three-storey semi-detached Edwardian house, and its associated detached garage, set back from the road within mature, generously sized gardens, makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and to the significance of the conservation area as a heritage asset.

The application seeks to replace an existing rear conservatory with a single storey extension to provide a new kitchen/dining room, and to extend the detached garage at the rear to provide additional ancillary domestic accommodation. There is no objection by the Council to the loss of the conservatory and given it is a 20th century addition to the property that has a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area, I have no reason to disagree.

The extensions would clearly enlarge the dwelling, both in terms of their volume and their footprint. Nevertheless, the single storey addition to the house would be considerably lower and narrower than the original dwelling and would represent only a moderate increase in floorspace compared to that of the existing building taken as a whole. Moreover, it would be of considerably less bulk such that it would be proportionate to the dwelling in terms of its scale.

The design of the extension incorporates elements including a side facing gable with an overhanging eaves and timber detailing, to reflect some of the details of the dwelling. External materials would generally match the existing building. The use of full height glazing set in aluminium frames, whilst not matching the fenestration of the original building is not inappropriate on a new part of the building and would, to my mind, ensure that the extension has a lighter-weight appearance and is read as a modern addition. I acknowledge that the form of the extension, which would have a flat roofed central section with rooflights, would not reflect the form of the original building. Nevertheless, the flat roofed element would not be visible from ground level, but rather the roof would be read as a pitched roof of materials and pitch to reflect that of the dwelling. The overall massing of the extension would not be inappropriate in the context of that of the house.

The Council has raised other concerns with the design of the alterations to the house, some elements of which were amended during the course of the application process. I am unconvinced that remaining issues relating to matters including alterations to the basement and to a side window, and concerning provision of a lightwell, would affect the significance of this non-listed building. Accordingly, whilst the proposal would change the appearance of the house to a degree, I am satisfied that it would not adversely affect the architectural quality of the building or its value to the conservation area.

The proposed extension to the garage extension is sizeable and would result in a substantial outbuilding. Nevertheless, given the size of the dwelling, the appearance and low height of the extended outbuilding and its position in the plot and in relation to the house, I am satisfied it would remain visually and functionally subservient to the main part of the property. Moreover, No 93 occupies a very generous plot and a significant amount of open garden space would be retained. As such the extensions, considered both individually and cumulatively, would not dominate the site and moreover, the spacious character of the site would continue to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

A new brick garden wall would be constructed to link the garage and the house to replace an existing fence and gate in a similar position. I note the Council’s concern that this would increase the massing of built development on the site. However, I am unconvinced that the wall, which would be constructed in materials to match the house, would be significantly more intrusive than the fence. Moreover, the landscaped character of the plot would remain apparent both in terms of the set back from the road and the open area of space behind.

Taking all the above into account, I conclude that the extensions, which would not in any event be prominent from within the public realm, would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. In reaching that conclusion I have had regard to the guidance found in the South Hale Conservation Area Management Plan 2017 and the Supplementary Planning Document SPD4. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with the statutory duty as set out above. Furthermore, the proposal would accord with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that great weight should be given to a heritage asset’s conservation. Given that I have found no harm to the conservation area, it is not necessary to balance any harm against public benefits as set out in paragraph 202.

For the same reasons the proposal would comply with Policy L7 of the [name] which seeks to ensure amongst other things that development is appropriate to its context and enhances the street scene or character of the area by appropriately addressing matters including its scale, height and massing, elevation treatment, materials and landscaping. It also complies with Policy R1 which requires a demonstration of how the proposed development will preserve or enhance the conservation area.

I have taken into account comments raised by third parties at the application stage. However, most of those elements of the original scheme which gave rise to objections were removed from the proposal as part of the amendments during the application process. Given its scale, the careful positioning of windows and the existing mature boundary treatment, I am satisfied that the living conditions of adjoining residents would not be significantly affected.

On that basis taking into account all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted subject the conditions set out above.