Appeal 6001936

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey extension to bungalow attached by glass link corridor at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref S25/1599, 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 25.026PL03-2 and 25.026PL03-3.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The appeal site is a semi-detached property surrounded by a large open garden. It is accessed via a long driveway towards the end of Green Street. There are fields bordering the site to the rear and side. In the immediate area, there is an eclectic mix of house types, designs and usage of materials. These include detached and semi-detached bungalows, dormer bungalows and two or three storey dwellings each set within a good-sized garden space. Properties are generally set back from Green Street and those opposite extend further out towards the countryside than the appeal site. There is no clearly defined uniformity to building spacing, scale or siting in the general sense.

The proposal would introduce a substantial extension to the bungalow that would be two storey with a large floor area. It would be read as a separate dwelling, despite being connected to the bungalow by a small, inconspicuous glazed corridor. It would be laid out as its own self-contained unit but occupied by the same family as the existing bungalow. Neither the internal layout nor manner of the extension’s occupation are contentious matters in the appeal. I have no reason to disagree.

Patently, the scale of the extension would be vastly disproportionate to the bungalow. Such that it would have the above effect. In so being however, it would be in amongst a wide variety of building types and incorporate features not uncommon to the street scene. The minor and unobtrusive scale of the link corridor would emphasise the visual independence of the extension and give a sense of space around new built form. Any unbalancing effect to the semi-detached bungalows would be readily absorbed by these effects. As would the fact that the adjoined unit (Number 37a) is to the rear of Number 37 as they present to Green Lane. It would in any case be almost obscured from the street scene by the extension which would not, for the above reasons, be by virtue of a harmful visual effect.

The proposal would not therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would comply with Policy DE1 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2020 which is concerned with development not having an adverse impact on the street scene by being of an appropriate scale, density, massing, height and material given the context of the area amongst other things.

There would be no harm to a conservation area as a result of the proposal and therefore there would be no need for me to consider any public benefits of the scheme. I have not, in any case, found any harm in regard to the main issue which would require anything to be then balanced against such.

The Design Guidelines for Rutland and [name] 2021 (SPD) provides guidance for new development but is not adopted. Within the SPD, an extension is expected to respect the scale and character of the existing dwelling but acknowledges that extensions do not need to be subordinate.

Other than the time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition relating to the submission and agreement of the details of materials prior to any development above ground level should be imposed because specifics have not been provided.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision otherwise. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the conditions set out above.