Appeal 3331008

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for refurbishment/reconfiguration of existing single storey bungalow - with necessary demolition works, proposed loft and side extensions. Roof alteration to provide additional habitable accommodation at first floor – including raised external walls, new roof, a small dormer at the side, and rooflights (obscure glass to side windows). Timber porch. Part single storey, part two storey side extension with front dormer window and rooflights at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref. 23/1603/HOT dated 9 June 2023, and the plans submitted with it and subject to the conditions listed below.

The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted (including fenestration) shall match those used in the existing building or otherwise be in accordance with those shown on the approved plans.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 120_006-PL01; 120_300_PL01; 120_201_PL01; 120_200_PL01; 120_100_PL01; 120_101_PL01; 120_102_PL01.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Fire Safety Strategy prepared by 4H Architecture dated 05.06.2023 and retained thereafter unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The two Velux windows at roof level in the south-west side elevation of the development hereby permitted, as shown on approved drawing No. 120_201_PL01, shall be obscure glazed over the lower (vertical) section and no part of the windows that are less than 1.7 metres above the finished floor of the room in which they are installed shall be capable of being opened. The windows shall be retained as such thereafter.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was published in December 2023, after the appeal was lodged. Even so, the design and amenity policies of the Framework remain unchanged, albeit some of the paragraph numbering is different.

The main issues are; (a) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, and (b) whether the proposed development would secure an acceptable standard of living conditions for future occupiers.

Policy LP1 of the Richmond Local Plan (July 2018) (RLP) seeks, amongst other requirements, to ensure that new development is of a high quality design and is compatible with local character and its relationship to existing townscape and development patterns, and is also compatible in relation to scale, height, form, massing, proportions and materials of the host and surrounding properties. A broadly similar approach is set out in paragraph 135 (previously paragraph

of the Framework, but it also states that being sympathetic to local character should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation or change. The National Design Guide (NDG) (January 2021) reinforces the Framework, for example, at paragraph 44 by emphasising that well designed places do not need to copy their surroundings and that it is appropriate for new development to include innovation and change to reflect how we live today.

[address] Extension & External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (May 2015) (SPD) predates both the Framework and the NDG. Even so, paragraph 5.2.1 states that side and rear extensions should not dominate the existing house or its neighbours and should harmonise with the original appearance. It continues by stating that whilst this is the starting point for any future changes there are alternative methods of achieving this aim including where “The extension is integrated with the house which can work well with detached houses and sometimes on the end of uniform terraces (see figure 5).” Figure 5 shows a detached house that has been extended by a full two storeys. Whilst the proposal that is before me seeks to remodel and reconfigure the host property, the [name] of Appeal (GOA) state that their approach to the design of the proposal has been to essentially follow the advice in paragraph 5.2.1 and Figure 5 of the SPD.

Within the above context, the proposed increase in height of the existing ridge and associated alterations to create the first floor accommodation within the new gable ended roof and essentially a full two storey side extension, would not, in my judgement, appear out of scale or harmful to the streetscene. I accept that there would be a material change to the scale and appearance of the host property when viewed from the road. However, given that the property to the south-west, [address] (No.40) is two storeys, as are a number of other properties within the road, the increase in bulk and scale combined with the pallet of materials and improved design would not introduce a visually dominant or incongruous feature within the streetscene.

I accept that the property to the north-east, [address] (No.44), is a single storey bungalow with accommodation in the roof. Even so, the low eaves on the new gabled first floor extension provides an appropriate transition to the gable ended design of No.44. [name] observed on site, whilst there are clusters of properties in the road that are similar, there are also a variety of other property styles and designs, including some modern two storey infill or redevelopment. The result is a variety of roof forms, ridge heights and building layouts. There is no uniform design, scale or character and in a number of cases two storey properties sit next to bungalows and chalet bungalows, but, even so, these relationships do not detract from the character and appearance of the area and instead add interest and variety to the streetscene.

In relation to the host property this would be remodelled using an attractive pallet of materials similar to existing and that found on other properties in the road. All the proposed changes would refresh the appearance of the host, whose current design is not of any quality or merit. In this respect, I disagree with the Council in that the proposal would, in my judgement, secure a high quality design that is a significant improvement on existing, that would in turn enhance the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area.

Turning to the extent and width of the proposed front façade, I agree with the Appellant that one of the significant features of the appeal site is that it has a much wider plot width than others in the road. This larger width is more than capable of accommodating the proposed two storey extension and first floor extension, whilst still retaining gaps between the extended dwelling and adjacent properties. This spacing would be similar to that found elsewhere in the road and on similar sized plots in the area. The design of the new front elevation including the use of contrasting materials, would enable the proposal to integrate well with No.40 and the wider streetscene.

In relation to the SDP, the form, scale and location of the proposed extensions would, in my view, be broadly consistent with the approach set out in the first bullet point of paragraph 5.2.1 and Figure 5. Even so, as with similar guides, the SPD offers general guidance on the approach that should be adopted and should be applied with flexibility and not rigidly. Moreover, any assessment must take into account the individual circumstances of the case and its local context, as well as the need to make efficient use of land and have regard to the nature of the proposals themselves, which, in this case, is a proposal to remodel and reconfigure an existing bungalow.

For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the proposal would sit comfortably on the appeal site and that the host property, as extended, even with its remodelled design, would not appear out of character with its surroundings. The appeal proposal would not upset the built rhythm of the streetscene and even though the new extensions would exceed the existing ridge height of the host this would not appear out of keeping given the varied ridge heights that exist along [address]. Accordingly, the appeal proposal would not result in any harm to the character and appearance of the host or to the streetscene and would accord with policy LP1 of the RLP and the policies of the Framework, and overall broadly comply with the guidance within the SPD.

The Council contend that due to the lack of clear glazed fenestration to new bedroom 2 on the first floor, the proposal would fail to provide a suitable standard of living accommodation for the occupants. I do not agree. Bedroom 2 would be served by two Velux windows with the bottom half comprising a vertical section of glazing. Even though the vertical element is shown frosted, the windows, as a whole, would provide, in my view, adequate light, outlook and ventilation to the occupants of the new bedroom. This finding is supported by the fact that it is not uncommon to find new bedrooms within the roofspace served simply by a Velux window(s), which can, on its own, still secure a good standard of living accommodation.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposal would provide a suitable standard of accommodation for future occupiers. In relation to policy LP8 and the SPD, I am not convinced that either are relevant to this issue in that they largely refer to safeguarding the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers from the impact of new development. My attention has not been drawn to any standards in either the policy or SPD that seek to control the level of light and outlook within new bedrooms. Even so, insofar as both seek the protect the living conditions of existing and future occupiers, I find that the appeal proposal would, in this respect, be compliant with the aims and objectives of policy LP8 and the SPD.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions against the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance chapter on the Use of planning conditions. Conditions requiring materials to match existing or otherwise to be in accord with those shown on the approved plans and for compliance with the approved plans, are necessary and reasonable to secure a high-quality development.

A condition requiring the adoption of the submitted [name] is also necessary to ensure the fire safety of the development. I also consider that a condition which requires the two Velux windows at roof level in the south-west elevation to be partly obscure glazed and fixed shut above a certain height, to be necessary and reasonable to reflect the details shown in the application and to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given above and having taken all the matters raised into account, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.