Appeal 3326285

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor extension over garage and internal alterations at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/0359/HOU, dated 22 May 2023, 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; plan number 3667; plan - scale 1:500; and plan – scale 1:1250.

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.

[name] 2023, the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not been amended. As a result, there is no requirement for me to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and I am satisfied that no party’s interests have been prejudiced by my taking this approach.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The appeal property is a large detached 2-storey dwelling, located at the entrance of a small cul-de-sac of detached properties. The property occupies a corner plot position at the junction of [address] and the B4193 [address]. This results in the front elevation facing the cul-de-sac and the rear elevation being parallel to [address]. The surrounding area is primarily residential in character and includes a mix of housing types.

The appearance of the property is different to other properties within the small cul-de-sac. It also has a single storey double garage attached to one side and a conservatory to the other side. The garage has a sizeable width, but it also has a generous set back from the front elevation of the main dwelling. No other properties within the cul-de-sac have this arrangement and due to its location at the side, along with its significant setback, the existing garage does not occupy a prominent position within [address].

The parties have identified that a previous planning application, reference 23/0230/HOU, for a first floor extension over the garage and internal alterations, was permitted in May 2023. The appellant has provided a copy of the approved plans as part of their statement of case. The approved scheme shows an extension above the garage with a reduced width at first floor, compared to the appeal proposal.

[name].24 and SP.20 of the Wyre Forest District Council Local Plan 2016- 2026 (LP), together and amongst other things, require new development to be appropriate for the locality and not represent overdevelopment of the site. Additionally, policy DM.25, concerns residential extensions and requires, amongst other things, extensions to be subservient, so as to not overwhelm the original dwelling, which should retain its visual dominance. In order to achieve this, paragraph 3.53 of the Council’s Adopted Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2015 (SPD), sets out that to ensure that the “front face width” of extensions is based on the original proportions of the house to be extended and as a general rule extensions to the side should have a maximum width of 4/7ths of the original front face width.

The proposed extension would be built directly over the existing garage to create a 2-storey side extension of a considerable width. However, the generous set back and noticeably lower ridge height, along with its position, would ensure that it has a subordinate appearance, and the visual dominance of the existing dwelling would be maintained. Therefore, despite its width, it would not overwhelm the appearance of the original dwelling and would not be an incongruous extension when viewed from [address]. Likewise, whilst it would be visible from [address], the acceptable size, form and position of the proposed extension would ensure that it does not have an adverse appearance within the streetscene and the wider area. The facing materials are also proposed to match the main dwelling, which will further ensure that the proposed extension has an acceptable appearance.

For the reasons outlined above, the design of the proposal is acceptable, and would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the host property or the area. Therefore, the proposal would accord with [name].24, DM.25 and SP.20 of the LP and the principles of the SPD.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have also, in the interests of certainty, attached a condition specifying the approved plans. A condition to secure that the external materials, relating to the proposal, match those of the existing dwelling, is also necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

I have not imposed a condition to prevent first floor windows in the west facing elevation, on the basis that such a window is not proposed and compliance with the approved plans is required by condition 2. Therefore, the suggested condition is not necessary.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.