Appeal 3319992

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘Erection of a two storey rear extension, existing front flat roofed dormers replaced with pitched roofs, following demolition of existing conservatory and sunroom.’ at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/0040/FFU, dated 16 January 2023, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The description of development was amended following submission of the application. I have utilised the amended description.

The main issues for this appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring property.

The appeal site is a detached chalet-type two storey bungalow situated along [site address] . [site address] is predominantly residential and has a mixed semi-rural, semi-suburban character. The dwellings along the road vary in terms of plot size, orientation, building line, scale, type and detailed design. The appeal site is typically varied from its neighbours.

The appeal scheme would introduce pitched roofs to existing front facing dormers. Pitched roof dormers are a typical feature of the area; indeed the neighbouring properties have similar such dormers. The appeal scheme would be a deep two-storey rear extension which would not be particularly prominent or visible within the public domain due to its rear siting, the relatively narrow gaps between properties and the setback from the road. In any case, varied scale and architectural styles are characteristic of the area and the extension would be proportionate to the scale of nearby development.

The Residential Design Guide (RDG) SPD seeks extensions which are subordinate to the original dwelling. Such supplementary planning documents provide helpful guidance as to what may be considered good design; however, this must be considered alongside the individual circumstances of the site and proposal. The appeal proposal would add a significant amount of mass to the host dwelling. However, the host dwelling has a simple utilitarian architectural design which does not merit preservation and the appeal proposal would appear as a cohesive design. As such, the appeal scheme would not unacceptably adversely impact the character of the host dwelling.

For these reasons, the appeal scheme is in accordance with policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies Document (CS and DMPD), adopted 2012, and the overall aims of SPD, which seek high quality design which respects local character and the living conditions of neighbouring properties, amongst other things.

The appeal scheme would introduce a deep two-storey rear extension, with windows in its flank walls, in close proximity to the boundaries of the site. However, [address] has been similarly extended and currently projects deeper than the dwelling at the appeal site. As such, the appeal scheme would not overbear or overshadow this neighbouring property. The flank windows of the appeal scheme would generally face the flank walls of [address] and its windows would not align with those in the flank walls of [address] which would be unlikely to provide opportunities for overlooking. In any case, I am satisfied that a condition requiring the flank windows in the facing elevation to be obscure glazed and high-opening would overcome any such potential.

Whilst smaller in scale and lower in profile than the appeal scheme would be, Eastwood is set back much further into its site than the existing dwelling at the appeal site. Indeed, only a single storey element abuts the boundary; the appeal scheme would thus not overbear or gain any overlooking of Eastwood other than over a roof pitch. The main dwelling of Eastwood is set further back into tis plot than the appeal extensions would be; preventing any overbearing, overshadowing or unacceptable overlooking of private amenity space or internal rooms.

For these reasons, the appeal scheme is in accordance with policy DM9 of the CS and DMPD and related SPD.

The Council has requested a total of 4 conditions; a 3-year commencement date for development, matching materials, construction in accordance with approved plans, and installation of obscure glazed windows prior to first occupation, as outlined above. I consider these policies necessary, reasonable and in compliant with the legal and policy tests for conditions to ensure that development takes place in a timely manner, in line with the proposed design details, whilst protecting the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring property.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the appeal scheme accords with the relevant policies of the Development Plan and no material considerations indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the Development Plan. The appeal is allowed.

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 2021-1443-PL [name], Existing and Proposed Site Plans 2021-1443-PL [name] and [name] and Elevations 2021-1443-PL [name].

Notwithstanding the conditions above, the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the windows in the first floor north western elevation facing the neighbouring property known as ‘[address]’ shall have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that/those window[s] that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.