Appeal 3324719

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey rear and first floor side extension and associated alterations at Sandalwood, [site address] , Almodington, [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/22/02589/DOM, dated 13 October 2022, subject to the following 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 following approved plans: C9/0214/03, C9/0214/04 and C9/0214/05.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the mitigation measures and enhancements detailed in the related [name] produced by AEWC Ltd

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

The appeal property is a detached dwelling with a large corner plot garden situated towards the edge of a hamlet not within a defined settlement boundary. The immediate site has extensive boundary vegetation. The wider area is one of scattered mixed dwellings usually in large plots and with horticultural style buildings appreciably present, all with varying degrees of visibility from the rural road network and pathways. The proposal is as described above and includes considerable extension and re-modelling works and the raising of the main ridge-line.

The Council is concerned that because of scale, form, massing and overall appearance the scheme would cause marked harm or detriment to the wider area’s character and appearance.

However, I found the appeal site to be well contained visually despite its corner position. I appreciate that the front porch element would be sizeable but I did note that this is something of a characteristic locally found on a number of homes; almost reading as barn-like gable end styles. The raising of the ridge would not be critical and the dwelling would certainly not look over-tall relative to its footprint or wider surrounds. The approach to extending the rear would be unusual but even if it were to be on view my sense is that in three dimensions it would be more visually at ease than via two dimensional plans.

I recognise that the sum of the works would be substantial, and that there is usually a call for subservience, but there can be instances where more extensive re-modelling of a non-remarkable building is legitimate; an end result can be assessed in its own right without over-reliance on the starting point. In this instance, my assessment is that whilst the existing dwelling would substantially increase in scale the proposed development would result in minimal change to the overall scene and the aesthetic character of the area.

Policies 33, 45 and 48 of the Chichester Local Plan are pertinent. Taken together and amongst other matters they seek to protect the countryside, rural ambience and landscape qualities generally; and embody in development good quality design, suitable form and appropriate siting given context. I conclude that the scheme would not conflict with these policies.

The scheme should have the standard commencement condition. The Council suggests the requirement for materials to match the existing building. I agree this condition would be appropriate in the interests of visual amenity. I also agree that there should be a condition that works are to be carried out in accordance with listed, approved, plans; to provide certainty. Furthermore, the suggestion on the condition relating to bats is valid for for biodiversity and wildlife protection reasons.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the locality. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.