Appeal 6002555

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the construction of a second-storey extension above the existing converted garage at [site address] , Buckinghamshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02117/APP, 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 numbers: P1 and P2.

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 description on the application form differs to the decision notice. However, I am satisfied that the original description accurately describes the appeal development and is therefore reflected above. The main issue in regard to which is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a detached dwelling sitting in a row of three buildings with unifying characteristics including a barn hip roof, red tile hanging and forward-facing dormers. It is located at the edge of the village centre and is set back from a single track. The wider dwellings are of varying types and scales.

The proposal would sit above the existing garage conversion, and it would give a more prominent appearance on the front elevation. However, it would not increase the footprint of the existing dwelling and would be stepped down from the forward-facing outrigger. Having a prominent forward projection is not uncommon in the street scene given the neighbouring property’s garage building. Moreover, whilst there are similarities, there are also elements of each building which set each one apart from the other which would readily absorb any differences with the appeal scheme. The additional storey would not appear alien or unusual nor give rise to unacceptable harm given the context. In terms of the Juliet balcony, this would be uncommon, however given the level of glazing on the ground floor as an additional focal point, its presence would not be unduly harmful.

The appeal site is within the Brickhills Area of [name]. The Council is satisfied that there would be no harm thereto due to the modest scale of proposal and I have no reason to disagree with their conclusion.

The proposal would thus comply with Policy BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2021, Principles DES59 and DES61 of the Vale of [name] 2023 and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 which together seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

The standard time limit condition and reference to the approved plans is necessary for enforcement purposes. The plans also detail the proposed materials to be used. Since they are acceptable, I have not recommended a materials condition. The Council has not set out any other conditions, and I have not deemed any others necessary.

For the reasons given above, the scheme would comply with the development plan, 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, and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out above.