Appeal 3316841

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a two storey extension to side of dwelling and single storey extension to front and rear at [site address] , BH15 in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/22/0168/F, dated 7 December 2022, subject to the conditions: -

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

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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the host property.

[address] is a residential area of properties of a similar form. The semi-detached appeal property occupies a corner position with the garden projecting to the side. The stretch of the road to the side comprises an extensive length of close-boarded fencing with the flank elevations to Nos.1 and 21 set back at either end.

The main two-storey side extension would fully align with the existing property and would match in terms of materials. An additional subservient element positioned centrally is an anomalous feature, but its form echoes that of the existing property and it would break up the flank elevation. Even with the extension, a gap would be retained to the side boundary and the property would still sit comfortably within its plot.

I agree with the Council that the existing extensions within the locality, as referenced by the appellant, are not directly comparable and are proportionally different. However, there are a variety of designs and any extension or alteration to one-half of a semi-detached pair will to some degree have an unbalancing effect. While the proposal would significantly increase the width it would integrate with the existing property and there are no local policies or guidance before me which indicate that an extension must be of a subservient design.

In contrast to the neighbouring properties where there are limited gaps between the semi-detached pairs, the end properties along [address] have a different relationship. Many utilise the generous but enclosed areas to the side for extensions and outbuildings, and a new detached dwelling has been constructed on the space that was to the side of No.2. Given the spacious plot and the separation which would be retained, I do not find that the new alignment of the flank elevation and elongated form of the building would be out of keeping or unduly dominant in the street scene.

The proposal also includes single-storey extensions to the front and rear. Both continue elements of the existing property, and the front extension would create a garage which would reflect the existing form to No.41, opposite. The Council has not raised any specific concerns with these elements, and I have no reason to disagree.

In conclusion, I find that the proposal would visually connect with the overall appearance of the existing property, respond to its design characteristics and would not be overly intrusive to the detriment of the character of the area. As such, it would accord with the requirements of Policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan 2018 which requires a good standard of design and for extensions to respect and relate to the existing building and maintain or enhance any details that contribute positively to local character.

Conditions are imposed to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements relating to the commencement of development and the plans in order to provide certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring the materials of the approved development to match the existing property in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

While the Council has suggested a condition to prevent the flat roof from being used as a balcony the scheme does not provide any access to the roof. This would require further alterations to the front of the property and the roof, and therefore I do not consider that the condition is necessary.

For the reasons set out the appeal is allowed.