Appeal 3331456

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for [name] extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 70016/FUL dated 5 June 2023 and the plans submitted with it, 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 plan: 2764/23/02A.

The works shall be carried out using facing materials to walls, roof and fenestration which match, in terms of colour, texture and appearance, those used on the original property.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and of the area.

The appeal site (No.11) is a detached two storey house within [address] which is populated by similar, but mostly semi-detached, dwellings, variously altered but to an extent which does not affect the generally cohesive character of this short residential street. The proposal intends to add an upper floor level to an existing single-storey side extension. As with the existing extension, the proposed upper storey would not occupy the full depth of the main dwelling and thus the proposed gabled roof is lower in height and in that regard would be subservient to the main roof although its front-facing surface is continuous with the main roof.

Policy R23 of the Council’s Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2010) (SPD) requires extensions to be ‘well designed and contribute positively to the townscape character’ offering at (c) guidance as to how this may be achieved stating that extensions should either be ‘a seamless extension to the form and scale of the original building or clearly subservient to it’. The notion of subservience in relation to a side extension would usually be interpreted in terms of a set back from the principal elevation and a lower or smaller roof form attached to a main roof. Such guidance attracts weight according to the circumstances under consideration and in this case a side extension to No.11 in the form proposed, as a detached dwelling well separated from other dwellings in the street1, would stand apart from and not undermine the prevailing pattern of development.

The Council refer to discussions with the appellant as to the roof of the extension being hipped rather than gabled, however that is not the proposal before me to determine. The proposal intends to continue the elevational treatment of the host dwelling with a combination of brick and render finish, with brick quoining and similar fenestration. Notwithstanding the roof form, this approach would present as being well integrated with the host dwelling and unobtrusive in the street scene. I attach, in these circumstances, little weight to any conflict with the design guidance referred to and conclude there is no conflict with Policy CSP1 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and [site address] [name] 2006-2026 ([name]) which seeks design which respects character and context.

As my reasons indicate, the proposal would not conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and, taking all matters raised into account, the appeal succeeds subject to the usual timing and plans condition, together with a materials condition to ensure, as far as possible, the works are carried out in a manner which is sympathetic to the character and appearance of the host dwelling.