Appeal 3354702

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of two storey front extension at [site address] , [name], Essex [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/01356/HH 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 front extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: P23-03; P23-04.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling on [address], a small, quiet no-through lane located off [address] in a semi-rural setting, connecting to a public footpath. [address] has a mixture of detached and semi-detached dwellings of varying designs and sizes, all of which are set back from the road.

The appeal dwelling is situated on a section of [address] which consists of three pairs of semi-detached dwellings which are similar in form but no longer uniform in design or scale. They feature various extensions and alterations Appeal Planning Officer APP/Z1510/D/24/3354702 including porches, side extensions and roof alterations in different combinations and with different roof types. There is also variety in the type and colour of external materials for this set of dwellings and the style and colour of windows.

Consequently, these three pairs of semi-detached dwellings have material differences and are not uniform or architecturally distinctive as a set. This, along with the range of styles and scales of the other dwellings on [address], means that there is no one architecturally distinctive style to the local built environment.

The proposed development would introduce a two-storey front projection, a built form not seen on any of the other semi-detached dwellings in this group. There are however other examples of two-storey front projections with similar or larger scale and massing further along [address] and nearby on [address]. Therefore, although different in terms of these three pairs, the proposal would not introduce an alien or incongruous form of development to the local area. Furthermore, given the existing variation even within these three pairs, the introduction of a novel form of development would not be inherently harmful.

The original symmetry between the appeal dwelling and its attached neighbour has already been significantly changed by alterations and extensions to No 1. Therefore, while the proposed front extension would alter the appearance of the appeal dwelling, the resulting change to the pair would not be materially harmful.

The proposal would also be modest in scale and in proportion with the existing dwelling, with the hipped roof set in and down and consistent with the form of the main roof. The design of the proposed extension would also allow for the original form of the main dwelling and roof to be readily appreciated. Accordingly, the proposal would be subordinate to the existing dwelling in terms of bulk, height and position and would not result in inappropriate massing.

As a result, the proposed development would be compatible with development in the local area. It would not cause any unacceptable impact on the identity of the appeal dwelling or street scene.

Therefore, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or the local area. Consequently, it would comply with [name] 36 and LPP 52 of the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033, which require that the overall design, scale, form and materials of development are compatible with the original dwelling and in harmony with the character and appearance of the local area. There would also be no conflict with the design policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.

I recommend the standard time period for commencement of the development condition in the interests of expediency. I also recommend a condition requiring the development to accord with the approved plans as this provides certainty. I further recommend a condition requiring use of matching materials to ensure an appropriate appearance for the development taking into account the character and appearance of the local area. Appeal Planning Officer APP/Z1510/D/24/3354702

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and agree with the reasoning and recommendation. On that basis, the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions listed above.