Appeal 6000797

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a single storey side extension and balcony including garage clock tower at [address], Trowbridge [postcode] , in accordance with the application [name]/2024/06092 and subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name] and [name] (including Location and Proposed Block Plan): Ref. [name] [address], [name], June 2024.

Although on the application form the address of the site says ‘[address]’ this should be ‘[address]’ and my Decision reflects this.

Because ‘part retrospective’ is not an act of development, I have removed this term from my formal Decision.

The main issues are: i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and ii) the effect of the proposed balcony on the living conditions of neighbours.

The single‐storey extension is modest in scale and positioned between the existing house and garage, where views would be limited by surrounding built development. Although the use of timber cladding is not ideal, the proposal forms a small infill addition within the established built form. In this context, the cladding would not result in harm to the overall design of the appeal property or the wider street scene sufficient to justify dismissal.

A clock tower is proposed at the centre of the garage roof, featuring a plain concrete‐tiled hipped roof and metal clock faces. Rising just over 1m above the garage ridge and occupying only a modest footprint, it would form a small‐scale addition. In most views it would sit against the backdrop of the host property and surrounding development, which would serve to limit its visual prominence.

In light of the above, the clock tower would represent a minor architectural feature intended to personalise the property. Given its modest scale and context, it would neither overwhelm the garage nor appear out of place within this modern development, where some degree of personalisation is already evident.

Accordingly, the proposal would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the area and accords with Core Policy 57 of the [name] 2015 (‘WCS’), which aims to ensure high‐quality design that responds positively to local character and reinforces the distinctiveness of the area.

Although the appellant has advised that the proposed balcony over the single-storey extension is intended to replace an existing one, I have limited evidence to support this. On this basis, the balcony would create a new vantage point.

While the proposed balcony would be close to [address], it would primarily face a flank wall of this property and therefore would not result in any unacceptable overlooking. The separation distance of around 20m, combined with the existing boundary treatments, would ensure an adequate buffer between the balcony and the rear gardens of properties to the south, avoiding any harmful loss of privacy.

The proposed balcony would allow some views towards the garden of the dwelling to the west. However, the existing garage at the appeal property, together with the boundary treatment to the neighbour’s garden, would provide partial screening, ensuring that any overlooking would be limited. Moreover, in a built‐up context such as this, a degree of mutual overlooking is inevitable and generally tolerated.

Therefore, the use of the balcony would not harm the living conditions of neighbours and accords with Core Policy 57 of the WCS, which amongst other things aims to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

Because the development has already commenced, I have not proposed the standard timescale condition for the implementation of the permission. However, a condition specifying the relevant plans is necessary as this provides certainty.

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