Appeal 3317943

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single-storey extension to front of dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 22/02603/FUL, dated 28 November 2022, and the plans submitted with it, 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, Plan entitled Proposed single-storey to front (Retrospective)

The main issue in this case is the effect of the front extension on the character and appearance of the area around [address].

No 12 is a semi-detached house situated on the southern side of [address]. This side of [address] is characterised by a mix of largely semi-detached and terraced houses. On the opposite side of the road from the appeal site is a primary school and an area of woodland. At the time of my visit, the appeal property already had a large front extension, projecting some 3 metres from the main front elevation and covering the whole width of the house. The proposal would involve replacing this extension with a smaller one of similar width but projecting forward only some 1.7 metres from the front elevation.

Policy 41 of the Council’s Local Plan (LP) indicates that development proposals will be supported where they, amongst other things, respond positively to their context, setting and existing site features, respecting and enhancing the character of the locality; and integrate visually and functionally with the immediate and surrounding area at a street and plot scale. Policy 44 of the LP indicates that housing proposals will be supported where the scale, massing, form, detailing and materials are sympathetic to the character of the area, or the existing host property.

The Council contends that the development, by virtue of its siting, size and scale, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and that of the [address] and would pose significant harm to the character of the host dwelling and street scene.

The appellant contends that the proposed extension is of a simple design and is small in scale. The fenestration matches that of the existing dwelling in all aspects, so retaining symmetry on the front elevation and, in addition, the position of the entrance door on the extension has been matched to that on the previous porch. Finally, there is no consistent building line along this part of [address], and that, since the property is set down from the public highway, the proposed extension would not cause unacceptable harm.

The houses along [address] are generally wide-fronted dwellings with just a limited depth. They are constructed largely of brick, although many also have full- or part-rendered or pebble-dash finishes. The appeal property is brick-built, though the current extension is rendered. The use of render is, however, in itself, not uncharacteristic of this part of [address], and, in any case, the proposed extension would apparently use matching materials.

In terms of the appearance of the existing front extension, its current scale is significant and unsympathetic to the context of its surroundings, where there are examples only of porches and shallower canopies to the front elevations. The proposed extension would be reduced in scale such that it would be less prominent and more in keeping with the overall size and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings. In addition, the house is set a little below the level of the road and this would reduce the visual impact of the front extension to some degree. Given the lack of a consistent building line, including nearby houses on corner plots that are built at a 45 degree angle, I do not consider that the proposed extension would appear out of character with the general context of its immediate surroundings.

In conclusion, I find that the proposed extension would not be significantly harmful to the character or appearance of the area around [address], and that it would not conflict with Policies 41 or 44 of the LP.

I have attached a condition relating to plans because it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. In view of the number of dwellings in the area exhibiting a mix of external materials, I do not consider that a condition requiring materials to match those of the original dwelling to be necessary in this particular case.