Appeal 3341526

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of hip to gable roof extension, rear roof extension involving conversion of loft space to habitable use incorporating rooflights and single storey rear extension (following demolition of existing single storey conservatory) at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 23/01424/FLH and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

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: location plan, ITE-201040-NA-001, ITE-201040-NA-002, ITE-201040-NA-003, ITE-201040-NA-004 and ITE- 201040-NA-005.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building.

The appeal proposal is described on the Council’s decision notice as: Hip to gable roof extension, rear roof extension involving conversion of loft space to habitable use incorporating rooflights and single storey rear extension (following demolition of existing single storey conservatory). I consider that this is a fuller and more accurate description of the proposal than that on the application form set out above and I have determined the appeal on that basis.

I consider that the main issues in this case are its effect on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

[site address] is a detached bungalow located in an established residential area. It is at the end of a row of bungalows on the north side of the street with the car park and access to a primary school to its west. The bungalows are broadly similar in style, with hipped and gabled tiled roofs and a variety of materials including render and brick. The properties on the opposite side of the street in this part of [address] are a mix of bungalows and two storey houses.

The relevant policies in this case include CS1 and CS5 of the [name] 2007 (the [name]) and DM9 and DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015 (the DMPD) which require high quality design for all development and, among other things, promote a sustainable environment. They seek to reinforce local distinctiveness and require proposals to respect the prevailing development typology, including house types and sizes, scale, height, form and massing and detailing such as roof forms. Proposals should also have regard to the amenities of occupants and neighbours in terms of matters including outlook and light.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance [name] 2004 (the SPG) contains specific advice for proposals for house extensions, including changes from hipped to gable roofs and the appropriate location of rooflights.

The proposal includes the alteration of the main roof to create a gable from the existing hipped roof to the west elevation of the building. I consider that, although this would be a radical alteration in the roof form, it would not necessarily be unacceptable in this context. The bungalow is at the end of a row, at an angle to the road, with a prominent garage partially obscuring the front of the building. The proposed gable would be angled away from the street and face the school car park and would not appear unduly prominent in the street scene.

Many of the neighbouring bungalows have been extended in various ways and there are numerous instances where garages have been constructed in front of the properties, often, as is the case of No. 116 itself, appearing as dominant features in the street scene. There are similar side facing gables in a small number of the nearby bungalows, but these are more towards the rear of the properties and relatively unobtrusive.

I conclude that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the bungalow itself, or the wider street scene and that in this respect, it is consistent with policies DM9 and DM10 of the DMPD and policy CS5 of the [name] and the SPG.

The proposal includes rooflights to serve two of the upper floor bedrooms. Although they may appear less than the optimal size for the rooms, I consider that, although as bedrooms they are habitable rooms, they do not appear to be principal bedrooms and there would be ample light, ventilation and outlook elsewhere in the property. This would not be sufficient reason, on its own, to justify dismissing the appeal.

I conclude that the proposal would not adversely affect the living conditions of future occupants and in this respect, it is consistent with DM9 and DM10 of the DMPD and policy CS5 of the [name].

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.

I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council, having regard to the tests set out in the Framework. A condition detailing the plans is necessary to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and for the avoidance of doubt. A condition relating to the materials is necessary in order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development.