Appeal 6000613

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey side/rear extension at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01318/FUL, and 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 ([name]. 23-008), Proposed Block Plan ([name]. 23-008-13), Ground Floor Plan as Proposed ([name]. 23-008-09) (Sheet 9), First Floor Plan as Proposed ([name]. 23-008-10) (Sheet 10), West & [name] as Proposed ([name]. 23-008-11a) (Sheet 11A), North & [name] as Proposed ([name]. 23-008-12a) (Sheet 12A).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those specified in the application form (dated: 28th March 2025).

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

The appeal site comprises a dwelling known as [site address] , a 2-storey dwelling situated in a generously-sized plot in a predominantly residential area. The local area consists of a mix of architectural styles, dwelling typologies and dwelling sizes, although several dwellings in the vicinity of the site are also found in spacious plots.

Due to its length and width, the proposed extension would undoubtedly constitute a sizeable addition to [site address] . Even so, it would be single-storey only, with a flat roof with 2 roof lights, meaning that it would appear subservient in scale to the remainder of [site address] . The use of suitable materials and its unassertive design would ensure that it would not detract from [site address] ’s appearance.

The proposed extension would be sited on the elevation facing the highway. Its prominence in the street scene would be considerably mitigated by its substantial set-back from the footway. Moreover, it would be seen in the context of large structures close to the highway, including the double garage which is connected to The Willows and the detached double garage which serves [address]. I observed that, despite the boundary treatments adjacent to these structures, due to their size and scale, both of these structures are highly visible in nearby views. In this context, due to its substantial set-back referred to above and its overall height, the proposed extension would not appear unduly prominent or obtrusive in the street scene.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with Policy CS6 of the Core Strategy1 and with Policy MD2 of the SAMDev Plan2 which collectively provide that, amongst other things, all development must be appropriate in scale and design taking into account the local context and character.

I have considered the need for conditions against the advice on conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Conditions are necessary, in the interests of clarity and enforceability, setting out the timescale for the commencement of development (condition 1) and the approved plans (condition 2), respectively. A condition is necessary controlling external materials to ensure that the proposed development would have an acceptable appearance (condition 3).

The Local Drainage Authority stated that the proposed development would be unlikely to significantly increase flood risk, and put forward text for an informative note. However, the PPG advises that informative notes do not carry any legal weight and cannot be used in lieu of planning conditions or a legal obligation to try and ensure adequate means of control for planning purposes3. Nevertheless, in implementing the proposed development, the appellants will be aware of the comments of the Drainage and SUDS team in relation to sustainable drainage matters.

As this appeal relates to a householder application, the biodiversity gain condition is not applicable.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.