Appeal 3337486

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey front extension, single storey side and rear extension to include roof lantern at [address], Hutton, Essex, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/01444/HHA, dated 21 November 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 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings: WPS-127WA-P1C, P2A and location plan PP-12620951v1.

The application form describes the proposed development as a two-storey extension to the front elevation. However, the application drawings also show single storey side and rear additions along with the two-storey front addition. The Council’s decision notice describes the development as a two-storey front extension, single storey side and rear extension to include roof lantern, and the planning appeal statement confirms that the single storey additions are an integral part of the proposal now at appeal. As a result, I will amend the description of development in the bullet point above to that adopted by the Council on its decision notice and determine the appeal accordingly.

To be the effect of the proposed extension on the street scene and thereby the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property, [address] (No 127) is a semi-detached two-storey dwelling. It and it’s attached neighbour are the last semi-detached pair in a row that were designed as identical semi-detached pairs facing Woodland Avenue. The neighbouring property is the first in a row of detached bungalows.

The appellant proposes a single story side and rear extensions together with a two-storey front addition. The Council raise no objection to the two single storey additions. From what I have seen and read I have not formed a contrary view.

The proposed two-storey front addition, which would replace the existing porch would be about 2.9 metres wide and project some 1.46 metres in front of the main façade. It would have a gabled roof with the with the eaves line being the same as that of the host property. It would, to my mind appear as a well-mannered addition to the property.

[name] saw there are a number of virtually identical two-storey extensions to that proposed here to other nearby dwellings, similar in design to No 127.

As identified by the Council the property is in a slightly elevated position from the street and No 129 to the east. Due to this, its location on the curve of the road and the slightly shallower front garden to others in the road with similar extension, this property is marginally more prominent than those.

Nevertheless, I do not consider that the proposed two-storey front extension here would necessarily appear so significantly more dominant as to cause demonstratable harm to either the street scene or the character and appearance of the area. To allow it would therefore accord with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy BE14 (1.a) and (1.e) of the Brentwood Local Plan 2016-2033 (Adopted March2022) as they relate to, amongst other things, the quality of development and the need for it to respond positively and sympathetically to its context.

The conditions follow from those suggested by the Council. To ensure a high quality development, I shall include a condition about the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building.

In the interests of certainty, I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans.

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