Appeal 3367600

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension, new gabled roof with rear dormer loft conversion and new insulated render to external walls at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00157/PFUL3 (PP- 13717791), subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 010 AM (Location plan and block plan), 013 AM (Proposed plan and elevations), and 014 AM (Proposed elevations).

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan 014 AM (Proposed elevations).

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the side facing loft floor window has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a [name] has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide for: • the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; • loading and unloading of plant and materials; • storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; • delivery, demolition and construction working hours. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

The proposed development includes several elements. The reason for refusal does not include the single storey rear extension or the proposed insulated render, and I see no reason to take a different view to the Council. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed roof extensions and alterations on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

No 205 is a two-storey, detached dwelling. It forms part of a small row of dwellings which have hipped roofs, but their overall roof designs vary, and the dwellings have individual design characteristics. The wider streetscene includes semi-detached dwellings with a similar roof design (which include large rear dormers) to that proposed located on [address]. There are also much larger buildings towards the west, such as the Co-op. The wide, busy highway and nearby traffic light-controlled junction is also a key characteristic of the area. Thus, the streetscene is varied and there is a lack of uniformity within the streetscene.

The main hipped roof would be lost with the introduction of gable ends. Nonetheless, the proposed roof form would be simple in design and form. Furthermore, the current front elevation flat roofed element would be altered to have a hipped roof which would be a design improvement. The proposed extensions and alterations would notably increase the scale and massing of the dwelling. Having said that, the extensions are primarily to the rear and therefore would not be conspicuous from public vantage points. Given the row of properties have individual design characteristics and the wider character of the streetscene is varied, and includes roof designs similar to that proposed, the proposal would not be out of character or scale with the area. Accordingly, the proposal would respect the streetscene and would be sympathetic to the local character.

For these reasons, and taking into account the proposal’s design, scale and massing, the proposed roof extensions and alterations would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Consequently, it would comply with Policies DE1 and DE2 of the Nottingham City Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document: Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policy 10 of the [name]: Part 1 Local Plan (2014). These seek, amongst other matters, to ensure development would respect and enhance the streetscape. The proposal would also comply with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that developments should be sympathetic to local character.

The appellant sets out that the development addresses the genuine needs of the occupants, and highlight their children’s needs. I have therefore had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty under s149 of the Equality Act 2010, and Article 8 of the [name] on Human Rights as incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998. [name] have decided to allow the appeal and grant full planning permission for the proposed development, there would be no interference with the appellants, and their children’s, rights or interests.

A neighbour has highlighted that they have health problems, have carers daily and use a wheelchair so access must be available to their dwelling and scaffolding on their land would not be possible. I am satisfied that subject to a construction method statement planning condition, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on the neighbouring occupiers living conditions or access. The matters raised would not be a reason to withhold planning permission.

The Council’s questionnaire sets out only two of the standard conditions are necessary. However, the delegated report sets out that a condition ensuring that the west facing gable window is obscure glazed, and non-opening up to a level 1.7m above the internal floor level, is necessary. The Council and appellant were given the opportunity to comment on the conditions I consider should be imposed.

It is necessary to attach a condition specifying the approved plans as this provides certainty. A condition is also necessary to ensure that the proposed materials are implemented to preserve the character and appearance of the area. In order to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, a condition relating to the side facing loft floor window is necessary. Furthermore, in the interest of highway safety and living conditions as well as given the location of the dwelling on a busy road and scale of the development, a construction method statement condition is necessary.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.