Appeal 6004288

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey front, side and rear extensions and roof extensions following demolition of existing outbuilding at [site address] in accordance with Ref 25/01203/REM, without compliance with condition 2 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 23/01292/FLH, dated 19 December 2023 and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

Planning permission was granted at the site in December 2023 for single storey front, side and rear extensions and roof extensions following demolition of existing outbuilding (the original planning permission). At the time of my site visit, I saw that the construction of the extensions had commenced and were largely completed. However, the design of the roof extension differed to that approved by the original planning permission.

The application subject to the appeal is described on the application form as removal or variation of a condition following grant of planning permission. Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) allows for a grant of permission for the development of land without compliance with conditions subject to which a previous permission was granted. In other words, the same development only subject to different conditions.

Condition 2 of the original planning permission specified the approved plans. The appellant seeks to vary this condition to alter the design of the dwelling. Simply put, this includes the introduction of an upstand at eaves level, an increase in the height of the eaves and main roof ridgeline and alterations to the rear gable.

The main issue is the effect that varying condition 2 would have on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is a bungalow located on a private residential road. It is set back from the highway behind a small car parking area. It is on a steep corner, and the building line of properties are staggered to follow the curve of the road. Both sides of The Warren are lined by bungalows which are set back from the highway and are constructed in similar designs with hipped roofs, front facing gables and side garages.

There are however, notable variations among the elevations of properties on The Warren, reflecting incremental changes which have taken place over time. These include dormer extensions, a range of window styles, varied facing materials, and different types of roof tiles.

I acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the overall height of the appeal building. However, while the ridge height would increase by approximately 0.3 metres, the hipped roof form remains consistent with both the host property and the prevailing character of the area. Given the separation between dwellings and their staggered arrangement along this corner of The Warren, the slight increase in height is not readily perceptible. Consequently, the proposed changes would not result in harm in this respect.

The upstand is a strident, contemporary feature, and I acknowledge that there is no example of a similar upstand found at nearby properties on The Warren. Although the neighbouring properties are generally of more traditional appearance, contemporary design and historic forms are not inherently inimical. Although the resultant building would no longer follow the wider street scene so closely, it would still retain similarities, including its hipped roof and front gable design. Consequently, whilst contemporary, it would continue to reflect the prevailing form of the surrounding properties and their scale.

The large, contemporary fenestration at first floor level, would be larger than the fenestration on the neighbouring properties. Given that the rear elevation would not be visible in the street scene or prominent within other viewpoints, I see no reason why this would not be an acceptable design alternative to the more conventional fenestration found at neighbouring properties.

The Council has referred to the Householder Supplementary Planning Guidance (2004). However, I have not been directed to any specific section of the document which would suggest that the proposal is unacceptable in design terms.

For the reasons outlined above, the alterations to the plans previously agreed under permission 23/01292/FLH are not harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The alterations would not conflict with Policy CS5 of the [name] (2007) or Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015) insofar as they seek a high standard of design for all development including extensions to existing buildings.

There would be no conflict with Section 12 of the Framework which requires development to be sympathetic to local character and history.

Interested parties have raised concerns in relation to the potential loss of natural light, outlook, light pollution and privacy for occupiers of neighbouring buildings. Given the separation distances, the limited increase in ridge height and minimal bulk of the upstand and as the Juliet balcony would be in a similar location as previously approved windows, I do not find harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. There is no roof garden proposed and I have re-applied a planning condition which precludes the use of the roof for such purposes.

Concerns have been raised in relation to construction traffic, health and safety and noise. I have sympathy for existing occupiers as development of this nature inevitably gives rise to some disruption. However, the works are time limited and it would not be reasonable to withhold consent on this basis alone.

Concerns have been raised regarding the retrospective nature of the planning application and subsequent appeal, as well as whether the works carried out on site accord with the submitted drawings. However, I am required to determine the proposal before me on the basis of the submitted drawings, irrespective of whether any works have already commenced on site, or any further variations to the built form which has been constructed.

A number of other matters have been raised by interested parties and I have taken them all into account. Those related to planning include the effect on local wildlife and ecology and the increase in properties for sale in the local area. However, whilst I take these representations seriously, I have not been presented with compelling evidence to demonstrate that the appeal proposal would result in unacceptable effects.

The Planning Practice Guide (PPG) makes clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should also restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect.

There is evidently no need for a condition restricting commencement of development. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with approved plans remains necessary as the development is not yet complete.

A condition related to materials of the external surfaces is necesarry in the interests of character and appearance. Conditions in relation to obscure glazing and preventing the use of the roof as a terrace or balcony are necessary to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: Location Plan (1:1250); Site Plan (1:500); As-Built Ground Floor Plan - [name]. LA/KT4/ASB/01; As-Built Roof Plan - [name]. LA/KT4/ASB/03; [name] and [name]. LA/KT4/04; [name]. LA/KT4/05.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall accord with those indicated within the application form associated with the application, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

The roof of the rear/side extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a terrace, balcony, or similar amenity area.

The rooflights in the side elevations of the development hereby permitted shall be glazed with obscure glass of no less than obscurity level 3 and permanently fixed shut unless the parts of the window/s which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed and shall thereafter be permanently retained as such. END OF SCHEDULE