Appeal 3343114

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion and enlargement of existing garage to form 2 storey side extension and alterations to existing property at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name].23/2384/HHOLD subject to the following conditions: 1.) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2.) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: 21/0359/001, 21/0359/104, 21/0359/104 A, 21/0359/100 C, 21/0359/102 C, 21/0359/103 C. 3.) The materials used externally in the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building in colour and texture.

An application for costs was made against Stroud District Council by the appellant. 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 host dwelling and the surrounding area.

[site address] is a semi-detached hipped roof dwelling with a single storey extension to the side. The property is located on a spacious corner plot and forms part of a row of semi-detached dwellings of a similar form. The https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - Appeal Decision APP/C1625/D/24/3343114 surrounding area comprises dwellings of varied forms and architectural styles occupying spacious plots. This results in a varied and spacious street scene to which the appeal property makes a positive contribution.

The appeal proposal relates to the conversion and enlargement of the existing garage and the erection of a first-floor extension above. The extension would occupy approximately 70% of the width of the original dwelling and would result in a property larger than other properties in the row. Nonetheless, the extension would be set back from the front elevation and stepped down from the ridge of the roof, offering an element of subservience from the main property which would remain the dominant element. The extension would have matching materials to the main property and a complementary architectural narrative would be achieved through the matching roof form and consistent window design.

A sizeable gap would remain between the extension and the western site boundary. Given this, and the retention of the sizeable rear garden, the extension would not appear unacceptably dominant within the street scene and the site would continue to positively contribute to the established character of the area.

In light of the above I find that the proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. I therefore find no conflict with Policies HC8, CP14 or ES12 of the Stroud District Local Plan (2015) which require that development is of appropriate design and appearance and is respectful of the site’s wider setting and location.

Planning permission is granted subject to the standard 3 year time limit condition for implementation. In addition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interest of certainty. In the interest of the character and appearance of the host dwelling, a condition is necessary to control the external materials of the development.

For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should succeed.