Appeal 6004055

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a 2-storey extension to the rear of property including moving bathroom from ground floor to first floor and additional bathroom at [site address] , Mapperley, Nottinghamshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/0566 subject to the following

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 No. 3 and the ‘Buy A Plan’ block plan.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be as detailed in the materials section of the planning application and the external bricks used in the walls shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

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 above is taken from the application form and differs from the decision notice which clarifies that the proposal just relates to a first-floor extension to the rear which is also evident from the submitted documents. No party would therefore be prejudiced by me referring to the proposal in these terms. I also note the scheme is not supported by floor plans. Be this as it may, the internal arrangement of the proposed development is not a contentious matter. The Council has assessed its effect on the living conditions of existing and future occupiers and found there to be no harm. I have no reason to disagree. It would, on this matter, comply with Policy LPD 32 of the Gedling Borough Local Planning Document Part 2 Local Plan 2018 (LP).

The decision notice refers to the Gedling Design Code Framework- Small Sites (2024) however I believe this is a typing error and it should refer to the Gedling Borough Council Design Code Framework Extensions and [name] 2024 (SPD) which is quoted in the delegated report. Nevertheless, and given the following assessment, the typing error has not changed anything fundamental nor prejudiced the ability of any party to make their case in respect of the appeal.

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

The appeal property is a detached dwelling set within a residential area. Properties on [address] are generally semi-detached or terraced with a few exceptions including the appeal building. There is no striking uniformity between the appeal property and the closest properties other than their use of red brick and set back nature. The rear of the property is only clearly visible from the rear windows of the properties on [address] and there may be some glimpses to the rear for users of the neighbouring footpath although there is tall hedging in place.

The proposal would introduce a first-floor extension above an existing single storey to the rear. The extension would be constructed of brick and would have a flat roof that would sit in line with the existing eaves of the property. The extension would not be clearly visible from the wider area.

I do not disagree that many of the roofs in the surrounding area are pitched or gable ended. However, given that the extension would not protrude any further back than the existing and that the extension would not compete for visual dominance given its lower height using matching brick, the use of a flat roof at first floor level would not, in and of itself, be the source of harm such that the scheme would be acceptable for the character and appearance of the area.

It would therefore comply with the requirements of Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Borough Gedling Borough Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 Local Plan 2014 and Policy LPD 43 of the LP which are concerned with development being in keeping with the surrounding character amongst other things.

The SPD is a material consideration. Although the extension proposes a flat roof, it would be clearly subordinate to the main dwelling, and the existing gable ended section to the rear. Although the extension would not be in accordance with some of the images shown within the SPD, it would be sympathetic to the main property and its neighbours and would meet the other mandatory requirements including roof forms of rear extensions to be considered on their own merits.

Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition relating to materials to be as per the application form with specific reference to matching bricks is necessary.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance. 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.