Appeal 3345579

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of garage and erection of a two-storey side extension (to include replacement garage) and two-storey front extension and alterations to windows and doors, at [site address] , Hampshire, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/00056/HOU, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the original brick-built dwelling.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing numbers Drawing names 1629 200 Location and Block Plan 1629 101 [name] 1629 102 [name] 1629 205 Existing Tree Location Plan 1629 202 Proposed Ground Floor Plan 1629 203 Proposed First Floor Plan 1629 204 Proposed Roof Plan 1629 201 [name] 1629 208 [name]

Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 2015 (or any order revoking or re-enacting this order with or without modification), no additional windows or doors shall be constructed in the side facing elevations of the development hereby permitted, at first floor level and above.

The above description is taken from the decision notice as most aptly describing the proposed development.

Concern is expressed by a local resident regarding potential noise if a heat pump were installed in connection with the proposed works but that would be a matter for separate building control legislation.

The main planning issue is the effect of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of [site address] and the surrounding area.

The area of [site address] is characterised by a variety of substantial, mainly brick-built, hipped roof, detached dwellings, facing the road, in relatively large and well-enclosed grounds.

[site address] is something of an exception to this, due to the original brick-built dwelling having its widest elevation at right angles to the road and its front-facing elevation comprised of its pitched-roof gable end, coupled with a large two-storey extension and attached single-storey double garage, both with flat roofs. In my view, the effect is of a rather awkward assemblage of built shapes which appears at odds in the wider street scene.

The proposal is to unify and extend the living accommodation and incorporate a new garage within a more conventional two-storey, hipped-roof building over the same footprint as the present arrangement, with its broader front elevation facing [site address] .

I recognise that this would cause the built development on the appeal site to appear more massive and monolithic and understand this to be the basis if the Council objection, noting that the new extensions would not be subordinate to the original house, as preferred in established planning guidance. The Council is also concerned that the larger building with its extra height, close to the eastern shared boundary with the neighbouring house, Treloyan, would reduce the space between the buildings.

I do not consider that the building, as proposed, would be unacceptably out of keeping or appear unduly disproportionate in the context of its plot or with respect to neighbouring dwellings. All are reasonably well separated by boundary features and distance. Treloyan is the closest but even there I do not see the potential reduction in open space between the buildings at first floor level as so significant as to warrant objection with respect to the street scene. Although larger than its immediate neighbours in [site address] , the extended [site address] would reflect the style and scale of other dwellings in the area, notably the later houses in nearby Newnham Park.

Overall, I consider that the proposed development would improve the character and appearance of the appeal property and that this net benefit would override any outstanding concern that the extensions would not be subordinate.

For these reasons, the development proposed would, in my view, be essentially compliant with the requirements of Policy NBE9 of the adopted Hart Local Plan, saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart District Plan and Policy HK12 of the made Hook Neighbourhood Plan regarding good design that respects and contributes positively to the local area. All these provisions are consistent with national planning policy and the proposal is to be regarded as compliant with development plan as a whole.

I therefore conclude that this appeal should be allowed and the permission sought granted, subject only to the standard conditions set out above and one further restriction on additional windows in the side elevation to protect the privacy of Treloyan.