Appeal 3373816

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an additional gable to provide first floor accommodation at [site address] , [site address] , Rangeworthy, Gloucestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/00808/HH, 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: Location Plan, GC.01.A ([name]) and GC.03.A ([name]).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The description of proposed development as referenced above is taken direct from the application form. To be clear, the proposal is not just for a gable but is rather for a full depth first floor side extension. The Council’s description, as listed on the refusal notice, is more accurate: Erection of first floor side extension to provide additional living accommodation.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area.

[site address] is a 1.5 storey, stone and tile dormer bungalow sitting well back from the street at one end of a terrace of 3 similar properties. It is located within a longer line of houses on the edge of this rural village, with open countryside opposite.

The property at the other end of the terrace, [address] has a 2 storey, gable fronted section to its far side which is taller than the rest of the house and runs the full depth of the building. The proposed extension to [site address] would be broadly similar to this. The Council accepts that, although its Supplementary Planning Document Householder Design Guide advises that extensions should be subservient in scale and character, the general idea of a taller, gable fronted extension is acceptable here because it would effectively bookend the terrace. The Council nevertheless has concerns about the scale and design details of the proposal.

Although the proposed extension would be somewhat taller and a bit narrower than the gable fronted extension to [address], this difference would not be significant given that the building sits well back from the street and next to a taller house. There is no clear reason here why the [address] would need to be exactly the same height and proportions. The proposed extension would also be deeper in plan than the one at [address], but this would not be readily apparent in views from the street. I saw at my site visit that there are other properties in the local area with similarly deep plan forms so this aspect of the proposal is not out of character.

The Council also raises concern about the visual impact in combination with an existing front dormer window. I see no particular problem in this regard, either. The extension has been designed to fit comfortably next to the existing front dormer, with the extra height of the extension necessary to provide a neat junction between the 2 structures. The extension would actually be beneficial in this respect, in that it would reduce the visual prominence of the box dormer. Finally, I consider that the proposed, somewhat irregular pattern of windows would fit in reasonably well in this informal rural setting.

I conclude that the proposal has been appropriately designed to avoid harm to the character or the appearance of the local area. It would thus accord with policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: [name] and policies PSP1 and PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan - which aim to ensure the highest standard of design, including in terms of scale, height, proportions and massing.

I find that the proposal accords with the development plan. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.