Appeal 6003556

For the reasons that follow, the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single-storey rear extension and a first-floor side extension at [site address] , Oxfordshire in accordance with the terms of the application, No 25/02521/F, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The appellant suggests that the proposed single-storey rear extension comprises permitted development, with the officer’s report noting that that is likely to be the case. However, whether it does or not is not a matter for me as part of this appeal. A planning application has been submitted which specifically includes that extension as part of the proposed development, which application falls to be determined on its planning merits.

The Council’s reason for refusal relates specifically to the proposed first-floor side extension. No issue is taken with the single-storey extension, which would adjoin a similar extension that is already in place to the rear of the adjoining semi-detached property, No [address]. From what I saw during my site visit, I am content that there would be no harm in terms of living conditions for neighbours, nor in terms of the general character and appearance of the area as a consequence of this element of the scheme. With that in mind, the main issue in this case relates to the effect of the proposed first-floor side extension on the character and appearance of the area.

The semi-detached appeal property occupies a prominent location on the inside corner of a hammerhead turning area, towards the southern end of a residential cul-de-sac. It sits side on to the hammerhead. A public right of way runs between [address] to the west, along the hammerhead, linking through to [address] to the east.

The appeal property has been extended previously with an unusually configured single-storey extension to the side, designed to accommodate the curvature of the site boundary whilst making best use of the available space. It has an asymmetric three-stepped footprint that increases in width towards the rear, with corresponding stepped roof slopes to the front two sections. The wider rear section has a pitched roof to the rear only. The roof slopes reflect the pitch of the main roof to the house.

The proposed first-floor extension would mirror the existing staggered footprint, with a similar roof formation. On approach from the rear, along the hammerhead, the extension would have the appearance of a standard two storey extension, with the existing house roof continuing across at the existing height. That would be no different from the two-storey side extension at No [address], opposite to the appeal site, which also occupies a corner plot.

To the side and front, whilst the eaves to the front section would align with the existing roof, the stepped footprint means that the eaves line to the front of the middle section would be above the eaves line of the main roof, with the eaves to the front of the wider section to the rear sitting just below the ridge to the main roof. As a consequence, the wall to the front of that rear section would rise almost to the ridge height of the main roof. That is unusual, but the stepped arrangement and consequent staggered roof design is already an existing feature of the street scene, albeit at single storey height. As such, the development would not introduce a wholly new feature into the street scene here. Indeed, I saw that No [address], another corner property diagonally opposite to the appeal site, has a not dissimilar two-storey extension to the side, which is set back from the building frontage presenting a blank, two-storey wall to the front, although the ridge is stepped down slightly from the main roof and the eaves align with the main house.

I consider that the extension makes best use of the space available, providing much needed bedroom space1 in a manner that reflects the existing, somewhat unconventional arrangement, which is already an established feature of the street scene. I find no material harm in this regard, to the character and appearance of the area and there would be no conflict with policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 (July 2015) saved policies C28 and C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan (1996) or 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 the commencement of development, and clarification of the plans which is necessary in order to create certainty for all, details of external materials are required in the interest of visual amenity.

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: Existing Site Block Plan 0100-005 Proposed Site Block Plan 0100-P-06 [name] and Elevations 0100-0010 [name] and Elevations 0100-P-01

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing building. ---------------------End of Conditions Schedule--------------------- https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 of 3