Appeal 3343516

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the removal of the existing rear garden garage/store and associated hardstanding; construction of a new single-storey rear and side garage extension; replacement windows to main house and removal of chimney stacks; increased parking area to the front drive, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. BH2023/02688, and the plans submitted with it, 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: [name] & [name] and [name]. Series 092: Plan Nos. 102; 103; 104; 105; 111; 112; 113; 114; 115; 116;

Other than for the flat roof of the extension, the materials to be used in the external surfaces of development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular reference to the streetscene of [address].

The appeal dwelling is detached with a frontage to the west side of [address]. With its position at the junction with [address], the two-storey house has a flank elevation and a rearward double garage both set back to align with No. 34 and the other properties in the road. However, projecting beyond the building line of [address] the plot has a side boundary comprising in turn, a brick wall; a lower brick wall surmounted by a close boarded fence, and an open concrete hardstanding in front of the existing garage.

The appeal scheme incudes a wraparound single storey side/rear extension with its side element extending beyond the [address] building line to within a short distance from the retained wall/fence sufficient for the planting of a new hedge.

Most of the side extension would accommodate a single garage with access to [address], with the remainder forming a utility room and a pantry, both with internal access to a rear extension with extended living space to a dining room and kitchen using the floor area of the existing building.

The Council’s objection is the breaching of the [address] building line by the side extension and the northern end of the rear extension with which it would be integrated. In this context, I note that SPD12: ‘[name] for Extensions and Alterations’ states that ‘corner plot extensions should respect the building line to both streets’.

However, whilst I have had regard to the SPD and acknowledge the reasons for the Council’s decision, it should be recognised that there is already a change of character and appearance to the south side of [address]. This is the difference between the small front gardens of the terraced houses and the side boundary of the much larger plot of No. [site address] . Both this boundary and the boundary of No. 13 on the other side of [address] have close boarded fencing along the back of the footpath. In the case of the appeal site, this fencing together with the low brick wall on which it is constructed provide an existing enclosure height of well over 2m and is noticeably forward of the building line on the south side of [address].

Because of the lower land level of No. 11 compared to the highway, the proposed single storey flat roofed building would only be slightly higher than the fence line, as is illustrated on drawing no. 092-113. And on my estimate, its length would be only about 45% of the site boundary between the corner of [address] and the side boundary of No. [address].

The appeal scheme would also have the considerable advantage of removing the existing dilapidated garage and its unsightly concrete forecourt from the [address] street scene. Furthermore, given a correct choice of planting, the proposed hedge behind the existing fence and its extension up to the front of [address] should grow to a height above the fence line and thereby soften the somewhat austere impact of the boundary treatment. In my view a higher standard and perhaps more contemporary boundary on the broad lines illustrated on the appeal statement cover would be warranted to complement the extension. However, I consider that it would be unfair to dismiss the appeal on that basis alone.

[name] consider that the appeal deserves to succeed on its individual merits, in coming to my decision I have noted the appellant’s references to other examples of extensions breaching building lines in the local area. And overall, I find on balance that the proposed development would not have any adverse effect on the character and appearance of the locality and in particular the [address] streetscene.

Accordingly, there would be no harmful conflict with Policy CP12 of the City Plan Part One 2016; Policies DM18 and DM21 of the City Plan Part Two 2022 and Section 12: ‘[name] and [name] of Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework December 2023.

I shall therefore allow the appeal. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is needed for the avoidance of doubt and is in the interests of proper planning. A matching external materials condition will ensure a harmonious form of development.