Appeal 3355479

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of single storey front, side and rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/03849, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 24/080010 [name].

The effects of the proposal on (i) highway safety and (ii) the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.

The appeal relates to a house at the end of a frontage of four pairs of semi-detached dwellings of the same original design, set closely together and at an even building line. Each is sited comfortably back from the road with a front garden and drive. In some the drives serve side garages, but not in the case of No 2. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, containing quite tightly arranged housing of a similarly modest scale.

The single storey extension proposed provides an extended kitchen, to become a kitchen/dining room, plus a downstairs bathroom and bedroom. The house currently has three bedrooms, although one is box room sized. The extra accommodation would result in a four-bedroom house, where the Council’s adopted standards require three car parking spaces. The dwelling currently has three, two in the front garden and one in front of these on a highway verge. In practice, three spaces remain available and meet the standards for a four bedroom Appeal Decision APP/ W3520/D/24/3355479 dwelling. Therefore, I do not consider this scheme would displace parking onto adjacent streets such as to impact adversely on highway safety and this satisfies Policy LP29 of the Joint Local Plan1 (JLP).

The single storey lean-to extension hips to the side and partly at the front, where it wraps over the entrance. It extends to the rear with a gable end facing the back garden. As an end property, the side and front of the dwelling are quite prominent from the road. The single storey additions would be subservient in scale to the main house and its original form would remain apparent. However, the part covering the front door envelops its brick arch, which is a unifying feature of all eight of the same design dwellings, although in one case this is replicated in a forward addition. For this reason, the extension would detract somewhat from the appearance of the host dwelling and the unified character of the street scene. In this regard, the proposal would conflict with JLP policies SP09, LP04 and LP24, as well as policy SNP14 of Stowupland Neighbourhood Plan, insofar as these relate to design quality.

By way of fallback, the combination of porch, side and rear extensions, potentially built as permitted development, could have similar or worse impacts. Given that the extensions proposed are reasonably modest and would not have a significantly harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the host property and surroundings, the proposal is considered on balance to be acceptable.

Under JLP Policy LP16 there is a policy requirement for all development to identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable biodiversity net gains (BNG), equivalent of a minimum 10% increase. The statutory BNG condition, applied since the adoption of the JLP, does not apply to householder proposals such as that under consideration in this appeal. Therefore, I do not consider it necessary to apply the condition suggested by the Council requiring biodiversity enhancement measures.

The standard time limit and plan compliance conditions remain necessary and, subject to these, I conclude that the appeal is allowed.