Appeal 3337152

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed conservatory. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the proposed garage conversion & erection of single storey front & side extension & internal alterations and planning permission is granted for the proposed garage conversion & erection of single storey front & side extension & internal alterations at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/02856/HHD, dated 25 October 2023, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and 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: 276/23.04; 276/23.05; 276/23.06; 276/23.07.

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.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.

The appeal site relates to a single storey detached bungalow on the turning head at the end of [address]. House designs and orientation vary at this end of the road. Several have their gable ends facing the road and a side wing set back containing the house entrance and an attached garage to the side of it. In some cases, garages have been converted to provide additional accommodation. The appeal property is a simple rectangular shape orientated lengthwise parallel to the road with an attached garage set back behind the main building line on one side and a small conservatory similarly set back on the other side, behind a close board wooden fence providing side access to the back garden.

The proposal includes a front extension with a gable end that would extend across to the side of the house in front of the attached garage which would be converted for extra accommodation. The gable width, roof pitch and height would be similar to other houses nearby and the recessed porch would replicate that on the neighbouring house, No 53, which has 2 front gable extensions.

From the street, the proposed extension would better reflect the character and appearance of houses nearby. As such, it would be an improvement on its current simple form which is somewhat out of keeping with other houses. I note the Council’s concern that viewed from the side it would appear awkward and disjointed because part of the extension roof slope would extend out from the side gable next to the flat roofed garage. However, the side elevation would only be seen in peripheral views from a few back gardens of neighbouring houses. In any case, I do not consider it would unduly harm its character or appearance from these views such that it would warrant withholding planning permission. The proposed development would not therefore conflict with Policies OS2, OS4 and H6 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (2018), the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), the National Design Guide (2021) and the [name] (2016) which require development to respect the character of the local area.

The proposed development also includes replacing the existing flat roofed conservatory with a substantial conservatory that would exceed the width of the house and be hipped roofed at one end and partially hipped at the other. It would dominate the side of the house due to its excessive length and additional height. Although it would not be visible from most of the street, because of the property’s location at the end of the road and the proposed conservatory’s slight set back, it would nonetheless be a dominant feature out of character with the host property and neighbouring houses and therefore unacceptable. The appellants have planning consent for a smaller conservatory and indicated during my site visit that they no longer wished to pursue that part of the scheme. Given that the proposed front extension and conservatory are both physically and functionally separate, I consider a split decision to allow the front and side extension and dismiss the conservatory would be appropriate.

A neighbour had concerns over whether the proposed front extension would lead to the loss of a parking space. However, there would remain space for [address] in front of the house and the local highways authority did not object to the proposal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed in relation to the proposed garage conversion and single storey front and side extension. However, in relation to the proposed conservatory the appeal should be dismissed.

In respect of the proposed garage conversion and single storey front and side extension, I have attached the standard time limit condition and a plans condition as this provides certainty. I have also added a condition concerning materials to ensure a satisfactory appearance.