Appeal 3335860

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the demolition of single storey rear extension and roof over attached garages, erection of rear extension with dormer windows, first floor side extension and timber balcony and handrail including balustrades and posts at Medhurst, Barnston, Essex [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/23/1995/HHF, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision;

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Location Plan 20629-S-001; [name] and First Floor Plan and Roof Plan 20629-S-002; Proposed Ground Floor Plan 20629-P-001; Proposed First Floor Plan and Roof Plan 20629-P-002 and [name] 20629-P-003; and

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.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Uttlesford District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property.

Medhurst is a large, detached dwelling with twin gable features located within the open countryside. It is situated centrally within a substantial plot, such that it is significantly set back from the road. The area is characterised by sporadic dwellings of varying design and appearance which creates a sense of place and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed side extension would fill the existing gap between the appeal property and garage at first floor level. It would have matching materials to the main property and a complementary architectural narrative would be achieved through the introduction of a third gable feature and the addition of modestly sized dormers, set down from the ridge and up from the eaves with pitched roofs to reflect the existing dormers. Given the prevailing character and appearance of the area, no harm would arise from the proposal’s appearance which would contribute to the variety of property designs.

Owing to the property’s footprint, the proposed roof extension would be set back from the section of the roof of the front elevation, offering an element of subservience from the main property. This would ensure that the twin gable features of the main property would still be clearly read as such, and the character and appearance of the main property would not be overwhelmed. While the full extent of the extended roof would be seen in face-on views of the front elevation from the road, the visual effect of the proposed roofscape would be mitigated by the generous set back of the property from the road. As such any face-on views of front elevation, or views of the side elevation, would be filtered by the distance between the viewpoints from the road and the property, such that the proposal would not appear overly bulky.

Overall, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property, and would be in accordance with saved Policies GEN2 and H8 in the Uttlesford Local Plan (2005). These policies include a requirement for development to be compatible with the appearance of surrounding buildings and home extensions to respect the appearance of the existing dwelling with regard to scale, design and external materials. It would also comply with the guidance set out in the Supplementary Planning Document – [name] (2005) in relation to the design of extensions.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in light of the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. I agree that a plans condition is necessary and reasonable in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a materials condition in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposal accords with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicated that I should take a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.