Appeal 3339208

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of side extensions at [site address] , Cricklade, Wiltshire, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2023/08554, dated 4 October 2023, 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 following approved plans, received 4 October 2023: Location Plan, and Existing and [name] and [name] (With Proposed Block Plan) Ref 3376/1.

The materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match in material, colour and texture those found in the existing building.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the first-floor window on the west elevation of the north side extension, serving the proposed ensuite bathroom, shall be obscure-glazed to no less than level 5 and fixed with a ventilation stay restricting the opening of the window and shall be permanently maintained in that condition.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the first-floor window on the south elevation of the south side extension, shall be obscure-glazed to no less than level 5 and fixed with a ventilation stay restricting the opening of the window and shall be permanently maintained in that condition.

The Council considers there to be no planning objection to a proposed first-floor extension over the garage on the north side of the property, and I agree.

I consider the main issues in the appeal to be the effects of the proposed first-floor extension on the south side of [site address] , first, on the character and appearance of the house itself and, in turn, on the local street scene, and second, on the privacy of the neighbouring dwelling at No 23.

The appeal property, No 24, and its neighbour at No 25 are the only two-storey buildings in Doubledays, the surrounding streets being comprised of bungalows. But standing at the end of a short cul-de-sac, these two dwellings nonetheless integrate well with their surroundings in character and appearance.

The proposed extensions would make the dwelling more massive, bulky and prominent in the street scene. However, the design is generally in keeping with the existing dwelling and others in the neighbourhood. In the view when approaching from the street in particular, I do not consider that the development would have any significant impact on the character or appearance of the existing house or the street, especially as the southern part of the appeal dwelling is partially screened in that view by the bungalow at No 23.

I accept that the southern extension would neither be set back from the front elevation and nor subservient to the main construction and that the combination of pitched roof shapes would be rather complex. However, the design would still be broadly in keeping with the local style.

Overall, I do not consider that the development would harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the street scene. In this respect, the development would comply with Core Policy 57 (CP57) of the [name] (CS) and Policy H3 of the made Cricklade Neighbourhood Plan (NP) with respect to high quality housing design. These policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The proposed master bedroom in the southern extension would introduce three additional windows at first floor level, facing neighbouring properties. However, in this essentially urban environment, I do not consider that this would give rise to an undue amount of additional overlooking, provided the south-facing window were obscure-glazed to avoid increased overlooking and loss of privacy within the rear yard of No 23.

Thus, with regard to privacy, the appeal proposal is further compliant with CP57 of the [name].

I have considered every matter raised in the written representations, including the concerns of several neighbours regarding the street scene, privacy and parking. In the latter connection, there is no objection from the highway authority or the Council and the extensions would not alter the parking requirement for the appeal dwelling.

I also note the personal need of the Appellant for additional accommodation for a growing family but I am not much influenced by this factor, as I base my decision mainly on the primary planning effects of the development.

Further conditions are required to ensure the obscure glazing of the western window of the northern extension to safeguard neighbouring privacy and also to secure the use of matching finishing material in the extensions.

The policies I cite above are consistent with the NPPF and I regard the proposed development as compliant with the development plan as a whole.

I accordingly allow the appeal, subject to the conditions I have outlined.