Appeal 6003601

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear and side extensions, roof conversion and extension including five dormers and front porch extension at Glanrhyd, [site address] , Wisborough Green, [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application ref WR/25/02487/DOM, 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 not be constructed other than in accordance with the materials specified within the application form and plans.

The development hereby permitted shall not be first brought into use until the ecological mitigation set out in the submitted ‘[name], prepared by [name] and dated July 2025 and ‘Bat Preliminary Roost Assessment Report’, prepared by [name] and dated April 2025, have been implemented in full, along with the following enhancements: a. The installation of one swift box or brick and one bird box within the site. b. The installation of one bat box onsite facing south/south westerly positioned 3-5m above ground. c. A hedgehog nesting box should be installed within the site. Thereafter, the ecological enhancements shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) no external illumination shall be provided on the site other than in accordance with a scheme that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall include details of the proposed location, level of luminance and design of the light source including measures proposed to reduce light spill. Thereafter the lighting shall be maintained in accordance with the approved lighting scheme in perpetuity.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: WPD861/A/03 [name], WPD861/A/30 [name], WPD861/A/31 [name], WPD861/A/32 [name], WPD861/A/36 [name], WPD861/A/33 [name], WPD861/A/34 [name] and WPD861/A/35 [name].

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow of simple plan form, with a projecting single storey element to the rear. There is a single storey outbuilding that lies to the side and rear of the property, running deep into the garden. The bungalow has a hipped roof with gablets, and a dormer to the front.

The property lies on the western side of [site address] , which descends as travelling northwards along that road. There are other properties along the road, with a two storey house adjoining to the north whilst to the south are bungalows (with works underway at the adjoining property). The properties along [site address] are set back from the highway, and have long rear gardens.

The proposed development would see the roof altered to a gable form, with new dormers to front and rear. A large rear extension is proposed which would fill in the area between the single storey projection and the existing outbuilding, with a crown roof design. This would be visible from the road due to the depth and the width of the extension projecting beyond the side elevation of the original dwelling. A new front porch is also proposed.

The alterations to the roof are not objected to by the Council, and I agree that the design of that element in the scheme would be a sensitive change to the form of the bungalow. The dormers are of appropriate proportions and design. The porch addition would be a minor change.

The rear extension is large, but it would not dominate the host property or intrude into the wider area. By filling in the open area between the main dwelling, the rear projection and the deep outbuilding, it would be well-contained on the plot and the wider area. The extent of development across the site and the countryside location would consequently be limited and not intrusive. Nor would the extension compete with the scale of development on the site which, with the increase in roof form due to the extension and change to gable from hip, would be a greater massing of building at the dwelling. The extensions to the building would thus be appropriate for the surrounding area and the wider landscape setting of the property.

The Council consider the design of the rear extension to be cluttered, with multiple elements in its form including the crown roof that would be higher than the eaves. I do not share these concerns, as the extension is a relatively straightforward, simple infill element in the rear garden area that links what is already a fairly diverse collection of roof forms and buildings in this area, i.e. the main dwelling, the lower rear projection and the large outbuilding. The crown roof design would present a design for the extension with a pitched roof to this area, which would reflect the pattern of roofs and projecting parts of the building. There is sufficient distance from the crown roof adjoining the dwelling to ensure no awkward relationship with the altered roof and the proposed rear dormers.

Policy P1 of the Chichester Local Plan requires all development to be of high quality design in accordance with the National Design Guide. Policy P2 requires proposals to, amongst other matters, protect, enhance and reflect the positive characteristics and distinctiveness of the local area, and to be integrated within the built environment and landscape. Policy P7 relates to residential extensions and alterations and seeks to avoid harm to the character of the area. For the reasons given I consider the proposals would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and so would be consistent with the policies of the development plan and with the National Design Guide.

The Council have suggested a number of conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed, which I have considered in light of the tests for planning conditions contained in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance: Use of

Consultation responses during the consideration of the application stated the need to attach a condition securing ecological mitigation measures, including relating to bats, as set out in documentation submitted with the planning application. A condition has also been suggested to control any external illumination at the property. I agree such conditions are necessary in the interests of ecological mitigation and biodiversity.

A condition has been suggested restricting the insertion of windows at first floor side elevations to protect amenity of neighbouring occupiers. However, permitted development rights for such windows require obscure-glazing and non-openable windows to 1.7m above floor level to protect living conditions, and so such a condition is not necessary.

I have attached a condition requiring the development to be constructed of materials as shown in the drawings, to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development. A condition has been attached specifying the approved drawings in the interests of precision.

For the reasons given above I conclude the proposed development is consistent with the development plan and the Framework. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.