Appeal 3330240

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey extension to the existing house and detached utility building at [site address] . In accordance with the terms of application 23/01221/HHD dated 27 April subject to the following

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 approved plans: 20B, 21A, 22A and 23A.

The material applied to the external surfaces of the extension hereby approved shall be smooth render, painted Farrow and Ball ‘lichen’ colour and the roof shall be single ply membrane. The material applied to the external surfaces of the outbuilding hereby approved shall be stone and the roof shall be slate, both to match the existing dwelling.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of development on visual appearance and character of the host dwelling.

The appeal property is an end terraced cottage with a pitched slate roof with and a single storey lean to extension and porch, giving this dwelling a larger footprint than most properties in the terrace. It is also located on one of the largest plots within this terrace. These properties have high fencing and are set back from the road with other properties behind, so are not easily visible from the public realm.

The appeal dwelling has a Cotswold stone façade, however the existing extension and other properties within the terrace have painted render facades. It is set within a residential area that is of higher density than other areas of the village. The row of traditional, modest cottages predates and contrasts with the more modern development around them, which has predominately been built with little reference to the local building traditions or styles and uses a mix of materials including a combination of brick and smooth render and imitation stone.

The West Oxfordshire Design Guide (DG) recommends that the scale, form and character of the original property should be sympathetically reflected in any proposed changes. The DG also outlines that the span of the extension should match or be less than that of the original property, the roof should be of a similar pitch and that extensions likely to fill a garden area are likely to be unsupported. However, the DG makes it clear that a well-designed modern extension can be successful because it has the potential to clearly express a new chapter in the story of the property through being differentiated from the existing structure.

The proposed extension would be situated in a similar position to the existing extension but would extend out further to the rear and side of the host property. Although it would have a relatively large footprint, this can easily be accommodated within this sizeable plot, and the extension would not obscure any more of the simple rear elevation than the existing does.

Flat roofs are found on a number of properties within the area. The design of the extension, including the flat roof, materials, glazing and roof light, would clearly express the relationship between old and new, and would create a distinction between the modern proposal and traditional terrace. Therefore, the original dwelling and terrace would still be appreciated.

Render is widely found on other dwellings within this terrace, the surrounding area and on the existing extension. Render was also permitted on the external walls of a previously approved two-storey extension on the appeal site. Therefore, the proposed use of render would not be out of character for the immediate area. The colour chosen would also harmonise with the local limestone building material, as required by the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2031 (NP). Consequently, the proposed extension would not erode or be unsympathetic to the simple form of the existing dwelling.

Due to the surrounding boundary treatments and position of the proposed extension, the proposed extension would not be visible from the street scene. Although it would be larger than the existing extension, it would be proportionate and of appropriate scale to its context in this large plot and would complement the existing scale and pattern of development. It would therefore not alter the distinctive character of the area or cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposal would respect the landscape quality of the locality.

The proposed outbuilding would have matching materials to the main house, would replace the existing shed and would be of a modest scale. In addition, this element of the proposal would not be visible from the street scene. Therefore, the outbuilding would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. The proposal would therefore comply with Policies OS2 and OS4 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (WOLP) which seeks development that is located in the right places and is of high-quality design which respects the character of the local area.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to Policy H6 of the WOLP, which requires extensions of existing dwellings to respect the character of the surrounding area. I have also been provided with the NP, of which Policy CH1 requires that development conserve local character. [name] have found no harm in this respect, the proposal also complies with these Policies.

In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, a condition has been recommended requiring the development accord with the approved plans, as this provides certainty and precision. It is necessary for the materials of the extension to be those stated in the submitted documents, in the interest of the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and I agree with the reasoning set out above. On that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions listed above.