Appeal 3354943

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for development described as “proposed front double storey extension to existing dwelling” at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/06751/FUL and 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: No1, No3, No4, No5, No6, No7 and No8.

Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials as detailed on the application form.

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.

A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published between the determination of the planning application and this appeal. The substantive parts of the new 2024 version do not however differ from the previous insofar as they relate to the main issues. The cases of the main parties will not therefore be prejudiced by my reference to the new version. I have proceeded on this basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the area and b) highway safety with specific regard to parking provision and manoeuvring space.

The appeal building is a link detached dwelling which has been previously extended to the front. It sits within a line of others very similar with the wider housing type varying with more detached and semi-detached dwellings. Generally, they are set back from the main road, with parking provision to the front and small front gardens. Many of the buildings have a simple horizontal gable roof style, however some have been altered with the addition of front facing gables. These features in combination lend a pleasant openness and consistency which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal proposal would mirror the previously approved front extension in scale, form, and land take and would not come further forward than the existing built form. Whilst some of the sense of openness would be reduced, it would not be unacceptably harmed by virtue of retaining the front garden. The dwelling currently stands alone in its features compared with the other buildings on the same row, therefore, the additions could be more readily absorbed. Moreover, it would also not be seen as an alien or unusual feature given the number of forward projecting gables seen on dwellings in the local vicinity. Given this context, the proposal would not detrimentally change the building to result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would thus comply with Policies CP9, DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan 2019 and the Householder Planning and Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2020 which together seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

The parking provision for the dwelling is to the front of the appeal site in which it has three spaces. Due to the additional bedroom and living space, there is a need to demonstrate adequate parking provision for the property will be retained. There are parking restrictions close to the appeal site for visiting vehicles at certain times and days, however residential permits do also apply. Surrounding neighbouring roads within a short walking distance are unrestricted. The proposal shows three spaces; however, they would not accord with the Buckinghamshire Countywide Parking Guidance 2015 (BCPG). In particular, the space directly in front of the proposal would be substandard. Therefore, an assessment has been made with one vehicle space being in dispute and being displaced to the public highway.

During my site visit, there was sufficient capacity on the immediate and surrounding roads for sensible and safe parking for one additional vehicle. Whilst this was a snapshot during the late morning, many of the driveways were also empty implying that any returning cars would park there as well as the road. In the absence of any compelling evidence to suggest that the proposal would give rise to additional parking stress in the highway. The potential displacement of one vehicle to the highway would not impede the free flow of traffic and thus would not compromise the safety of the highway for users. The proposal would therefore comply with Buckinghamshire Council Local Transport Plan 4 2016, the BCPG, the Buckinghamshire Council Highways Development Management Guidance Document 2018 and the Framework which together seek to ensure that highway safety is secured for the users of new and existing development.

The standard time limit condition and reference to the approved plans is necessary for enforcement purposes. In addition, it is necessary to ensure that the materials used are to match the host dwelling to be in keeping with the area. The Council have not recommended any additional conditions and I have not deemed any others to be necessary.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan. I therefore recommend it be allowed, subject to the conditions set out.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out above.