Appeal 3347036

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single-storey and two-storey extension following partial demolition of existing single-storey offshoot at Wildwood, [address], Scrooby, [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 24/00172/HSE, dated 7 February 2024 and subject to the conditions set out below:

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 submitted with the application: - Existing Ground Floor Plan and [name] – Ref: ‘Planning 2 - Existing’ - [name] – Ref: ‘Planning – [name] - [name] and Location Plan – Ref: ‘Planning 2 – [name]

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

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

The proposal would form part of the host property called Wildwood, a part single and part two-storey detached dwelling positioned within its own large garden area. There is one neighbouring property, [address], approximately 40 metres to the east of Wildwood and 50 metres from the proposed extension. To the south, beyond the large garden, is a large paddock, owned by the appellant, which provides a significant visual gap between the detached properties on [address] and the Pilgrim Fathers Caravan Park about 140 metres away. A dense area of woodland lies next to the appeal site and to the west which. This provides a particularly good level of screening for the property from locations to the west.

To the north is [address], a single rural track from which vehicular access to the property is gained. [address], there is open countryside northwards. The site is located about 250 metres northwest of the village of Scrooby and within a landscape characterised as generally flat with prominent field boundary hedgerows and distinctive groups of woodland. The site is largely screened from wider views around the local area.

The Council refused the proposal as it considered its design to be poor and that it fails to respect its context and the traditional character of the host property. [name] saw during my visit, the existing buildings of the western offshoot, that comprise of a series of storerooms, are in a poor state of repair. They are not wind or weather tight and have been the subject of attempted break-ins. In terms of scale, these existing offshoot buildings are 4.3 metres wide, reducing to 3.9 metres closest to the rear (south) elevation of the existing offshoot. The existing offshoot extends to a length of 21.18 metres and the proposed extension would reach a length of 26.1 metres. This would result in less than a 5-metre increase in length overall. Given the scale and footprint of the existing property and noting the size of the spacious rear garden, I do not consider such an increase in the length of the western offshoot to be excessive or inappropriate.

In relation to the width of the proposed extension, the proposed gymnasium would be the same as the existing garage and an existing storeroom. The garden room at the end of the proposed extension would be wider than the rest of the offshoot by 1.7 metres. However, when viewed from the rear garden to the south, this larger element of the proposal would appear in proportion to the rest of the existing dwelling in terms of its width, height and overall scale. The greater width of the garden room element in relation to the rest of the proposed offshoot would not be discerned from this direction. Furthermore, when viewed in the wider property context, whilst its ridge height would be slightly higher than the single-storey central element of the host property which runs adjacent to [address], it would be at the same height as the main part of the existing dwelling.

The Council has stated that the two-storey element of the proposal does not reflect the character of the existing dwelling and does not appear as a subservient addition. As such, it is too large in scale, in height and in footprint. However, from the evidence and what I have seen on site, it is my assessment that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the host property or the surrounding area in those terms. Indeed, as I have noted, much of the proposed footprint of the extension would replace existing buildings resulting in a relatively modest increase in the overall size of the property.

Wildwood has a range of roof structures at differing heights which vary with each part of the property. The proposed two-storey element of the proposal would have the same ridge height the highest part of the existing dwelling. Therefore, in height terms, it cannot be concluded that the scheme would be subservient to the host property. However, I find that when the overall scale and footprint of the proposed extension is compared to the entirety of the host property would appear subservient to it. This is because the two-storey element would be seen as part of an offshoot to the main property and despite being two-storeys, it would be set apart from it, albeit connected by a mix of the existing and new single-storey parts of the building. As such, it would have the appearance of an annex to the main dwelling. It is due to that perceived distance from the main two-storey part of Wildwood and the difference in scale of the built form across the property as a whole that would result in the proposed garden room / hobby room appearing as a subservient element.

When viewed from the east within the garden area of Wildwood, I find that the scale and height of the proposed garden room / hobby room would be appropriate and comparable to the existing main part of the host dwelling and its eastern elevation. As a result, the proposed extension would not appear as an excessive addition or out of keeping with the host property in scale and height. Furthermore, from various vantage points within the large garden of the host property ranging from east to south, the proposed extension would be substantially screened by existing trees and hedgerows. Therefore, its visual and physical impact on the host property and the surrounding area would be limited. In addition, the extension would not be substantively visible from [address] to the north or from any public highway or vantage point in the surrounding area.

The proposed extension would use matching external materials to the existing property in terms of brick walls and concrete tile roofing. This would ensure that the overall material appearance of the proposed extension and the existing property would be consistent. The proposal would also respect the positive features of the host property in terms of the pitched roofing, its mix of single and two-storey elements, the proportions of the openings, particularly on the ground floor, and its rural characteristics and appearance.

It is noted that the gable end of the two-storey extension is predominantly glazed at ground and first-floor level and the Council consider this to not be in keeping with the traditional appearance of the main dwelling or its rural location. Indeed, it is considered that it would have a more modern, suburban character. However, in my assessment, the proposed design utilises a more contemporary design element in terms of larger glazed areas which enhance the sustainable design elements of the scheme in terms of the potential for solar gain benefits within the south elevation of the proposal. Furthermore, I find that the combination of the traditional design of the existing dwelling and the more contemporary extension demonstrates the evolution of the property in design terms which are tied together through the use of matching external materials across the whole property.

Accordingly, although the design of the two-storey element of the proposal would be wider and higher than the existing outbuildings and would project further into the rear garden than the existing offshoot, in my assessment, it would have no detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the host property in terms of its scale, height, footprint and appearance.

The proposed extension would have regard to the existing boundary features of the appeal site retaining the existing woodland area to the west and the robust visual screening that it offers. The proposal’s footprint would not venture any further west than the existing range of buildings and therefore I am satisfied that it would have no adverse effect on the health and vitality of any trees or hedgerows in that woodland area. As the woodland area would provide substantial screening for the proposed extension and host property from most, if not all, vantage points west of the appeal site, it would also limit any visual impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The host property is positioned within in its own spacious gardens and does not fall within a particular character, design or type and other properties in the vicinity are also individually designed. It is this individuality of properties in design terms which gives the area its varied built form characterisation of the surrounding area. Therefore, I find that the proposed extension would enhance the individuality of the host property in such a way that would not be harmful to that characterisation. Indeed, it is that individuality of appearance which the proposed extension would result in the scheme appearing locally distinct.

The property is some distance from Scrooby village. Given its detached location from the settlement and distance from other properties in the vicinity, the proposed extension is not required to conform to a particular pattern or style of development. In this case, I find that the proposed extension would complement the existing dwelling and would sit well in its spacious and secluded rural setting. The site is not highly visible and has only a low level of visual prominence in the surrounding area. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have no adverse effect on the character and appearance of the local area.

Through its design, scale and use of matching external materials, the proposed development would respect and complement the character, appearance, size, scale and positioning of the existing dwelling and therefore would have no adverse effect on the character and appearance of host property. Furthermore, given its situation, the proposed extension would have no detrimental impact on the street scene or public domain along [address] or on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Consequently, having taken all the above matters into account, I find that the proposed scheme would be consistent with Policy DM4 of the [name], Policy ST35 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan (2020 – 2038) and Section 3.5 of the Council’s Successful Places Supplementary Planning Document.as well as the relevant sections of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2023).

The standard conditions identified in this decision relate to time (1), the approved plans (2) and materials (3) which are all necessary and reasonable to provide clarity regarding the development hereby permitted and to ensure a satisfactory development in terms of its appearance.

For the above reasons, having had regard to all other matters raised and subject to the conditions set out in this decision, the appeal is allowed.