Appeal 3315011

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/01409/FUL, dated 16 August 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] 1129-01 [name] and 1129-02 [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.

The application was amended to include deletion of the proposed widening of the existing vehicular access. Therefore, whilst the description I have quoted in the banner heading above reflects that which was given on the original application form, my formal decision uses a description that reflects the amended plans and which was given on the decision notice and repeated by the appellants on the appeal form.

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

The appeal property is a detached bungalow occupying a corner location at the junction of [address] with Berrow Park Road within a residential neighbourhood comprising a mix of predominantly detached and semi-detached dwellings of various sizes and designs. The existing dwelling fronts [address] to the north side and has been extended to the rear behind an attached garage now used as a laundry room, up to and adjoining the side boundary to No [address]. This addition projects beyond the side, west elevation of the property and marginally wraps around it, set away from the common side boundary with No [address]. The proposal would add to the existing rear and side extension by adding to its depth, moving it closer to the boundary with No 5, and projecting it further along the dwelling’s west elevation. The extension would have a flat roof with a gabled façade facing [address].

Policy DEV20 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014- 2034 (JLP) deals with place shaping and the quality of the built environment. It requires development to meet good standards of design, to contribute positively to both townscape and landscape, and to protect and improve the quality of the built environment. To achieve this it lists nine criteria to be met. Paragraph 6.82 of the JLP states that the policy will be amplified through supplementary planning documents. To this end the Supplementary Planning Document 2020 (SPD) was prepared by Plymouth City Council, South Hams District Council and West Devon Borough Council to amplify and give guidance on the implementation of the policies of the JLP. Appendix 1 of the SPD gives guidance for residential extensions and alterations.

As a general comment the SPD advises that extensions and alterations should relate well to the main dwelling and character of the area. That they should generally follow the same architectural style and use the same materials as the original dwelling and that proposals should also respect the character of the area, including building form and layout, architectural style and materials. With regard to roofs the SPD states that the shape, pitch and colour of roofs (and the roofing materials) on house extensions should normally mirror those of the original home unless there are clear reasons why this is not reasonable or practicable and that flat roofs will be discouraged where they are not a feature of the original house although they can sometimes be acceptable at the rear of properties, particularly where they are not prominent and help to reduce the height of an extension.

The use of a flat roof would be contrary to the SPD guidelines. However, its form would be shielded in direct views from [address] by the gabled parapet to the front and due to its position, it would be out of site from Berrow Park Road. I accept that it would have the potential to be glimpsed in angled views across the frontage to [address], but it would not be prominent. Instead it would appear as an inconspicuous feature that would be set against the gabled form of the existing roof. Furthermore, there would be good reason to keep the scale of the addition low level at this point due to the proximity to the boundary with No 5. For these reasons I detect no conflict with the aims or objectives of the SPD as far as it seeks to ensure development respects the character of the area.

The Council is concerned that the proposal, when combined with the existing extension, would amount to an overdevelopment of the site that would appear cramped. However, the proposal would effectively engulf the existing extension, incorporating it into a remodelled addition to the original. Although set closer to the west elevation compared with the existing extension, development tight to boundaries is not uncharacteristic or out of keeping with the pattern of development in the locality. Moreover, there would be ample separation between the dwellings at Nos 5 and 6 to ensure that they would not appear unreasonably close or awkwardly sited in relation to each other. In addition, No 6 would retain the existing garden space to the [address] and Berrow Park Road frontages, ensuring that it would remain comfortable in those street scenes.

Overall, I am satisfied that the proposal would display the quality of design required by JLP Policy DEV20 in order to respect the local townscape.

A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans is necessary to provide certainty. In the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the area a condition is required to ensure that the extension is carried out in materials to match the existing.

For the reasons given, I find that there would be no harm to the character or appearance of the area. Accordingly, in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.