Appeal 6003431

For the reasons that follow, the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a part two-storey side extension and part single-storey rear extension at [site address] , [site address] , Buckinghamshire, in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/3145/FA, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The appellants’ ground of appeal refer to concerns about the Council not entering into discussion with them following the refusal. Frustrating as that may be, that is not a matter for me in relation to this appeal, which can only consider the planning merits of the proposal.

The main issue in this case relates to the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the area.

[address] comprises an Γ-shaped residential cul-de-sac. The appeal property, a detached, two-storey dwelling, occupies a corner plot on the inside of the right-angle bend within [address]. Whilst the dwellings within the cul-de-sac are relatively consistent in terms of their original design and appearance, a significant number have been extended successfully, often at first-floor above garages to the side of the properties. Unlike most of the other houses here, the garage to the appeal property is detached and is located to the rear, at the end of the garden.

Its corner location means that No [address] to both the front and the side (south-west) elevations. Whilst the appellants take the reference in the reason for refusal to ‘proximity to the southwestern highway boundary’ to be reference to its proximity to [address], the appeal property does not have a boundary with that road, with the officer’s report confirming that ‘The proposed two-storey side extension would be erected right up to the southwestern boundary of the site, which adjoins the pavement/highway of [address]’. I am in no doubt therefore, that southwestern highway boundary of the property referred to in the reason for refusal is the side boundary of the property with [address].

The house is set off the side (southwestern) boundary, which is defined by close boarded timber fencing along the back of the footway here. It is proposed to erect a two-storey extension to the side of the property (between the house and the boundary fence), together with a single storey extension to the rear. The side extension would be set back just over 1 metre behind the front elevation of the property, and the ridge would be set slightly below that of the existing house, with a gable-ended roof that reflects the existing design. External materials and fenestration would also match the main house. I have no reason to disagree with the officer’s report in these regards, which confirms that the size, scale, appearance and design of the proposed extension are in keeping with, and of subordinate mass and bulk in relation to the host property. The same can also be said for the single-storey extension, which would sit behind the two-storey element, extending part way across the rear of the host dwelling, with a shallow pitched roof over.

In terms of the relationship of the side extension with the highway, a particular concern of the Council, I found there to be no clearly defined building line on the eastern side of [address]. The two properties that front that side of the street are set well back from the highway, behind front gardens and drives. The side of the appeal property is set much closer to the footway than the fronts to those two properties. As a consequence, it already punctuates views down [address] towards the rear of the appeal property. Although the proposed two-storey element would project beyond the side of No 10, it would not introduce a feature into views along [address] where none exists at present. Rather, it would reinforce a building form that is already a feature in the street scene here and the property would continue to be seen against the backdrop of the dwellings beyond, on the opposite (northwestern) side of the cul-de-sac.

Whilst it would extend development up to the existing fence line, the street scene is relatively spacious here. The houses that face the side of the appeal site (on the western side of the road), are set back behind front garden areas, with footways, along both sides of the road, with the curved footway around the front corner of the appeal site being particularly generous. Given that context, I consider that the side extension would not appear unduly cramped in its setting. Neither would it be so dominant or intrusive in the views along the street as to be unacceptable. Indeed, the resulting development would not be dissimilar to the two-storey extension that has been added to the side of No [address], at the junction of [address] with [address]. The extension to that corner property extends up to the fenceline along the back of the footway on [address], sitting forward of the properties on the southwestern side of the street in views up the street towards [address]. That development does not appear cramped on its plot and does not detract from the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst the Council raises concerns in relation to the development setting an undesirable precedent, I am not aware that precisely the same site-specific arrangement occurs elsewhere in the vicinity. To confirm, my conclusions are based on the site specific considerations of this case and I have found no material harm. Any permission would not prevent the Council from resisting unacceptable development elsewhere. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 of 4

Whilst the appellants’ evidence referred to side extensions to other properties in the wider area, which I viewed,1 none were directly comparable to the site specific circumstances that prevail at the appeal site and they have not informed my decision in any way.

Overall, I find that the proposed development would not stand out as an unduly dominant or intrusive feature within the street scene and there would be no material harm to the character and appearance of the area in this regard. There would be no conflict therefore, with the Council’s Householder Planning and Design Guidance SPD (2020), polices CP9, DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019) and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which, together and among other things, seek to achieve a high standard of design that responds positively to the character of a site and its surroundings. For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should succeed.

In addition to the standard time limit on commencement of development, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in order to provide certainty for all parties. In the interest of visual amenity, a condition is necessary to ensure that external materials match those of the existing dwelling and in order to protect the privacy of nearby occupiers, it is necessary to ensure that the first-floor side-facing bathroom window shown on the plans is obscure glazed, with any opening light to be no lower than 1.7 metres above the internal floor level.

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan unnumbered [name] PR01 Proposed Ground Floor Plan PR01 Proposed First Floor Plan PR02 Proposed Ground Floor Plan (plan PR01 actually shows the proposed roof plan) [name] PR05 [name] 1 PR06 [name] 2 PR07

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing building.

Prior to the first floor bathroom hereby permitted being brought into use, the side facing window to the bathroom, as shown on the approved plans, shall be fitted with obscured glazing, with no part of any opening light to be less than 1.7 metres above the floor level of the bathroom. The window shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter. ---------------------End of Conditions Schedule--------------------- https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 of 4