Appeal 6000747

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for side extension and front infill extension to line of front bay, including formation of integral garage. Increase ridge height, new roof form and loft conversion including dormers and rooflight. Updated fenestration and material externally at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00611/HOU, 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 approved plans: ARK.HAR.200 REV:1, ARK.HAR.203 REV:1, ARK.HAR.204 REV:1, ARK.HAR.205 REV:1, ARK.HAR.206 REV:1, ARK.HAR.207, ARK.HAR.208 REV:1, ARK.HAR.209 REV:1, ARK.HAR.210 REV:1.

The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the proposed development shall be as specified in the approved application unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the dormer windows on the northern and southern side elevations shall be glazed with obscure glass which conforms to or exceeds [name] 3 and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of overlooking. Furthermore, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, or any subsequent re-enactment, no further fenestration shall be installed to serve the first floor in the rear and side elevations of the development hereby approved without express planning permission.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider street scene.

The character of the area is suburban and residential. The appeal site is located toward the northern end of [address], it comprises a detached bungalow with a pyramidal roof form, projecting front element with a hipped roof, and flat roofed porch within a rectangular plot. There is a modest garden to the rear and a paved parking area, driveway and lawn to the frontage.

No 133 is located along a stretch of [address] which is characterised by residential dwellings of varying size, form, appearance and spacing, with no one property form or design being predominant. The local character includes a mix of roof forms, orientation and spacing within plots, and a vast palette of finished external surfaces and materials.

The Council raised concerns that the proposed extensions and alterations would result in a cramped form of development through the building extending across almost the entire width of the plot. I am satisfied that the changes to No 133 would result in a remodelled building that would be comfortable in its setting. Indeed, during my site visit I observed other properties in the immediate vicinity which had no side access or significant gaps to their boundary. Similarly, I noted properties of a more contemporary design, some with floor to ceiling glazing, raised ridge and eaves heights and roof dormers. These elements of the proposal would appear to be consistent with the character of the area.

The resultant dwelling would be clearly visible from a range of viewpoints along [address]. However, given the proposal is set back from the road and its relative distance from other buildings, the height and massing of the extensions and alterations would not appear unduly dominant in the street scene. I find the proposed fenestration and materials break up any horizontal or vertical emphasis and provide a degree of balance to the form of the dwelling.

The form and detailing would generally complement rather than conflict with the varied styles of other houses in the local area. Whilst the development would result in a dwelling of larger height and width, owing to the individual evolution of residential dwellings and the vastly differing designs in the locality, I find that overall, the proposal would reflect local characteristics.

I understand from the submissions that the appeal property already benefits from an extant planning permission for various extensions and alterations. The evidence indicates that appeal proposal would result in more extensive alterations to the property than the extant permission would. However, I have found in my reasoning above that the appeal proposal would not result in harm. As such, the extant planning permission has little bearing on my decision in this case.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance the host dwelling and the wider street scene. Therefore, it would not conflict with saved Policy H12 of the Borough of Christchurch Local Plan (2001) and Policies HE2 and KS1 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan (2014).

A neighbour objection was received as part of the submissions regarding overlooking and loss of privacy from the proposed first floor window in the rear elevation of the appeal property. In this instance, the information before me indicates that the distance would be sufficient to ensure that privacy is maintained.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

A materials condition is reasonably necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

A condition relating to the dormer windows is necessary to preserve the amenity and privacy of the adjoining property.

For the reasons given above, considering the development plan as a whole and all relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.