Appeal 3343706

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an extension to living accommodation at [site address] , Sandgate, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/2077/FH, 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 external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building/dwelling.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos. 7685 101 rev 01 Proposed Block Plan and 7685-03 [name] and Elevations dated 23 October 2023.

Prior to commencement of the development the applicant shall obtain, from a suitably qualified engineer, a written slope stability report which includes a construction method statement, advising on the effect the development will have on the stability of the site and all adjoining land and properties. No development shall take place until this report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved report.

This is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The Corniche is a residential cul-de-sac situated on a south facing slope overlooking [name]. As the [name] highlights, the area is characterised by two-storey detached dwellings of mixed design. Although the mix of architectural styles provides some visual interest, I would be hard pushed to describe The Corniche as particularly sensitive in streetscape terms.

[name] saw on my site visit, the houses at the eastern end of the street are set slightly further back than Nos [address]. The appeal property and its neighbour No 7 are arranged either side of a small turning head and complement each other with projecting integral garages. The Officer’s Report states that No 5 and 7 have an identical design. However, upon proper inspection that is clearly not the case, there are distinct differences between the accesses, driveways, front gardens and roofs.

The appeal scheme seeks a modest extension to the projecting garage. The Council argues this would add significant bulk to the garage thus creating a dominant and jarring addition to the host dwelling. The height of the extension has been reduced by 1.4m compared to a previously refused scheme1.

The proposed extension would essentially increase the size of the projecting garage both upwards and outwards toward the road. In so doing, the extension would fill the space between the existing flank wall of the garage and the back of the footway. I am not persuaded that this strip of land makes an important contribution to the street scene. While there would be an increase in height and bulk, the ridge height of the garage would still be below that of the main house. I do not therefore accept that the host dwelling would be overwhelmed or dominated by the extension.

With regards to the unbalancing effect, I have already found that the houses are not identical. Even if they were, I do not see why this should be a barrier to a modest extension of the kind proposed here. The houses are not listed nor is the area covered by protective designations. There are no objections from neighbouring occupiers and the houses are situated close to the head of a quiet residential cul-de-sac with very limited exposure in wider views.

As the Council accept, a large part of The Corniche’s character is derived from the eclectic mix of building styles. Against that fundamental observation, I find it difficult to understand the Council’s opposition to the scheme. The proposal very clearly would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, there would be no conflict with Policies HB1 and HB8 of the adopted Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 which among other things seeks development that respects its surroundings in terms of layout, scale, proportions and massing.

In addition to the standard conditions for householder development, I have imposed a simplified condition to ensure a soil instability report is approved by the Council before development commences. This is because the appeal site lies within an area subject to soil instability.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.