Appeal 6002951

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for additional first floor to an existing rear ground floor extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0711, 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: 022062025007/A - Existing and [name]; Location Plan.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a traditional, semi-detached cottage with white render, sash style windows and a slate roof. When viewed from [site address] , the cottage appears largely unaltered, with its original character retained.

Flat roofed, two storey extensions have been added to both of the neighbouring properties (20 and 24 [site address] , Nos 20 and 24). These extensions, which appear to have been in place for many years and are clearly visible from the street, would not comply with current design policies. Nonetheless, they form part of the established character of the area. Despite the insensitive additions, the appeal cottage and its immediate neighbours add interest to the streetscene, and contribute positively to the varied character of the area.

The extension now proposed would be constructed above the existing single storey rear addition at the appeal property. As it would be well set in from the side wall of the main house, the new extension would not be visible from the street. Indeed, views would be largely limited to the appellant’s own rear garden, with existing fences, walls and structures restricting visibility from neighbouring properties.

When viewed from the elevated rear garden, the proposed extension would appear ‘tucked in’, filling the space created by the side wall of the flat roofed, two storey rear extension at the adjoining semi, No. 24. The lower ground level of the cottage would reduce the impression of the extension’s scale and bulk, and it would appear clearly subservient to the main house. The modest depth of the existing extension means that the raised side wall would not be overly large, and in any case, there are few positions from which it would be seen in its entirety.

Compared with more modern buildings, the appeal cottage appears to have low ceiling heights, and the proposed flat roofed extension would exceed the eaves height by a small amount. I acknowledge that by doing so, the extension would not fully respect the original character of the building, and note guidance in the Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document 2007 (SPD) regarding the importance of respecting roof form. However, the cottage and its pair have already been significantly altered at the rear, and the original roof form has already been breached by the neighbour’s rear extension.

As noted in Policy DM20 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 2, past unsympathetic extensions should not be regarded as a precedent for other similar proposals. However, in this case, the siting and design of the proposed extension would respect the character of the existing building, despite the flat roof.

Unlike that at No. 24, the proposed extension would not extend for the full width of the building, so the original roofline would still be apparent. The style of fenestration would reflect that in the existing building, and whilst the window positions would be slightly higher than the retained first floor window in the original building, this would not be obvious. In any case, the existing first floor rear windows do not exactly line up, so this is already a feature of the building. The roof lantern may be an unusual addition at first floor level, but it would not be particularly noticeable either.

Overall, I find that the proposed extension would be acceptable. In coming to this view, I have taken account of the existing context and the limited extent of any visual impact beyond the appeal property itself. Because it would not be seen from the public domain, the extension would be unlikely to set a precedent for future flat roofed developments, which in any case would need to be considered on their own merits.

I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the area. It would broadly comply with the requirements for well designed extensions and alterations contained in Policy DM10 of the Local Plan Part 2, and the design principles set out in Policy DM17 of the same document. The proposal also meets the relevant requirements for quality of design set out in Policy CS7 of the Local Plan Part 1. It would comply with the thrust of the design guidance contained in the SPD.

As well as the standard implementation condition, a condition specifying plans is needed to provide certainty. A further condition requiring matching materials is necessary to ensure a satisfactory appearance.

For the reasons set out, the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions.