Appeal 6001660

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alteration of the existing maisonette at the rear and erection of small first floor extension in courtyard at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01966/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos Surv01 Site Location Plan, PL01 Existing and Proposed Block Plan, PL02 Proposed Ground Floor Plan, PL03 Proposed First Floor Plan, PL04 Proposed Roof Plan, PL05 [name], PL06 [name] 2, PL07 Proposed 3D Perspective and PL08 Proposed Section A.A.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed using the materials shown on the approved plans and specified in the application form.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted details of privacy screens for the roof terrace hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The privacy screens shall be installed in accordance with the approved details before the dwelling is occupied and retained thereafter.

Planning permission was previously granted at the site for the alteration and extension of the existing 2 flats at first floor (1x1 bed and 1x2 bed) and the addition of 1no. self-contained 3 bedroom flat at second floor level and 1no. 2 bed maisonette at the rear behind the retained retail units, together with associated bicycle and refuse storage (reference 23/00929/FUL).

The Council considers that the proposal should have been considered by way of an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for a variation of condition on a previously approved and implemented scheme. Nevertheless, a full planning application was submitted to the Council and determined, and this is now the subject of this section 78 appeal. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

At the time of my site visit, construction work was underway. Although there are some inaccuracies between what is shown on the submitted plans and what has been built out to date, my assessment is based on the plans before me, rather than what has been constructed. I consider those plans to be sufficiently accurate to assess the proposal without being prejudicial to interested parties. Any works carried out not in accordance with those plans would be a matter between the Council and appellant.

As set out above, the Council refused the application on procedural grounds and did not set out its position on any substantive grounds.

Therefore, based on the evidence before me, including third party responses and my own observations, the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.

The appeal site is located on the corner of [address] and [address]. The existing property comprises retail use at ground floor level, fronting on to [address], and residential use at first and second floor levels. A maisonette is currently under construction at the rear of the site, fronting on to [address].

The site is located within an area which includes a mix of residential and commercial uses, the majority of which are focused on [address]. [address] largely comprises terraces of 2-storey dwellings. Buildings are of a consistent form and scale and, despite alterations to some properties, there is a uniformity and rhythm to the built form. The built form at the appeal site contrasts with this in terms of its form and materiality. However, I observed on site that it is experienced in the context of the properties fronting on to [address], with which there are commonalities in terms of materials and form.

The appeal proposal comprises an extension to the maisonette currently under construction at the rear of the site. The extension would provide an additional bedroom and roof terrace at first floor level. While no objection is raised by the Council in its evidence in respect of character and appearance, concerns have been raised by a third party in terms of the increased bulk of the building, with particular reference to its position relative to the footpath.

I acknowledge that the proposed development would increase the extent of built form, including in proximity to the footpath. However, from the plans before me and my observations on site, the increase would be relatively modest in the context of the existing and approved built form at the site. The extension would be no greater in height that the maisonette under construction and would not extend any closer to the footpath than the approved scheme. Its elevational treatment would be consistent with that of the maisonette. As such, I find that the form and design of the extension would, when taken as a whole, reflect and respond to that of the maisonette, as well as its context as part of the wider development.

Moreover, by reason of the siting of the proposed development between the existing built form of the maisonette and the building fronting onto [address], together with its setback from the footpath, the visibility of the proposed extension would be relatively limited. Having regard to this, I am satisfied that it would not increase the perceived bulk of the maisonette or the overall development to such an extent that it would appear incongruous.

Taking account of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building or surrounding area. As such, the proposal accords with the aims of paragraphs 125 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in that it would be consistent with the prevailing form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene, well-designed and sympathetic to local character.

Concerns have been raised by an interested party regarding the quantum of refuse storage to be provided as part of the development. The proposed development would result in one additional bedroom. In my experience, this would be unlikely to significantly alter the refuse arising from the overall development, arrangements for which are secured by a planning condition attached to 23/00929/FUL. I note that the Council did not raise any concerns in relation to this matter either. As such, this matter does not lead me to alternative conclusion on the main issue.

The Council has provided a list of conditions that it suggests should be applied in the eventuality that the appeal is allowed. I have assessed those with reference to the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. I have amended the wording of some suggested conditions without altering their fundamental aims.

In addition to requiring commencement within the relevant statutory period, I have imposed a condition requiring adherence to the approved plans. These conditions are imposed for certainty.

A condition relating to materials is necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area. However, I am satisfied that sufficient details are provided on the approved plans and application form to give certainty as to the appearance of the building and have amended the wording suggested by the Council to reflect this.

A condition relating to privacy screening is necessary in the interests of safeguarding the living conditions of occupiers given the proximity to neighbouring flats and balconies.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.