Appeal 6004366

The description of development on the application form is as set out in the header above. However, the proposal comprises a part single-storey, part two-storey side extension in place of the existing garage, a two-storey rear extension to replace the existing conservatory and a single-storey front porch extension. The Council determined the application on this basis and I have done the same.

The description of development on the application form also refers to internal alterations. I have omitted this wording from the description in this decision as such works do not constitute development.

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the part single-storey, part two-storey side extension.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted insofar as it relates to a two-storey rear extension and a single-storey front porch extension at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00527/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

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

Details of the render colour and texture shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to its application to the external surfaces of the approved development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed or inserted in any wall or roof of the dwelling which is the subject of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as they relate to the two-storey rear extension and to the single-storey front porch extension only: J3703-01 [name], J3703-02 [name], J3703-05 [name], J3703-06 [name] and J3703-07.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the effect of a loss of a hedgerow on residential amenity.

The appeal property (No 2B) is a large, two-storey detached house with a detached garage to its western side. [name] 2B and the similar house opposite (No 2A), stand perpendicular to the adjoining [address]. As a result of this layout, the upper elevations of No 2B are highly visible from the surrounding road. The rear has a greater prominence when viewed from a public footpath, open grassed area and bus stop behind the rear fence.

No 2B stands within a plot which is more spacious than others on the adjacent housing estate. The more traditional houses on the opposite side of [address] are generally within larger plots. The existing scale and design of No 2B broadly reflect those of the nearby estate houses which are set back from the road frontages. Overall, there is a sense of spaciousness in the wider area.

The appeal scheme follows a 2024 appeal decision (APP/P1045/D/24/3349688). A part single-storey, part two-storey extension to the side, replacing the existing garage, was dismissed. Planning permission was granted for a single-storey rear extension to replace a conservatory at the rear. This scheme has not been implemented.

Among other things, the previous Inspector concluded that the side extension would be unduly bulky and incongruous, as well as having an overbearing effect on the neighbouring property No [address] (No 12). In the current appeal proposal, the size of the side extension, and in particular the two-storey element, has been reduced and it would be set in further from the boundary with No 12, thereby reducing its scale and massing.

However, the single-storey element of the side extension would have a greater footprint than the first floor. Above its front and side walls would be a visually jarring pitched, hipped roof. The side wall of the rear element of the single-storey extension would also be set in. Together, these elements of the design would lead to a complex arrangement of elevations and roof profiles. They would result in an incongruous and bulky extension which would fail to reflect the simple design lines of the well-proportioned host property. Furthermore, the overall appearance of the resulting house would be inconsistent with the design of other properties in the vicinity and thus it would not assimilate with its surroundings.

For these reasons I conclude that the part single-storey, part two-storey side extension would fail to respect and would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This aspect of the appeal proposal thereby conflicts with the provisions of Policy PD1 and HC10 of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan (DDLP) which, in summary and of relevance to this appeal, require high quality design which respects local character. There would be further conflict with the requirement for high quality design set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). This element of the appeal proposal should therefore be dismissed.

The two-storey rear extension would respect the simple design of the host property by following the lines of its external walls and roof. It would be proportionate and sufficiently subservient to the scale of the existing house. Although visible in the street scene, this extension would not appear as an overwhelming addition and would not be unduly prominent in its surroundings.

The front extension to the host property would replace the existing porch/extension. It would be a modest addition which would sufficiently respect the design of the front elevation. Due to the orientation of the house within its plot, I conclude that the front extension would have an acceptable appearance within the street scene.

The proposed rear and front extensions are physically and functionally severable from the proposed side extension. I conclude that these aspects of the appeal proposal would accord with the design aims of the [name] PD1 and HC10 and those of the Framework.

Turning to the second main issue, the Council states that the loss of a hedgerow as a result of the proposed development would harm residential amenity. However, whilst hedges and trees are notable features of the surrounding are there is no hedgerow on the appeal site. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Planning Committee minutes, or in other evidence, to indicate what the alleged harm to residential amenity might be. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, I conclude that the Council’s reason for refusal has not been justified. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with Policy PD6 of the DDLP which, among other things, seeks to retain trees, hedgerows, orchards or woodland of value.

I have had regard to all other matters raised, including objections from Council Members, neighbouring occupiers and Ashbourne Town Council. The Council’s decision on the planning application indicates that earlier concerns about the overbearing effect of the side extension on No 12 and the potential for loss of light have been satisfactorily addressed by the revised proposal. As the massing of the first-floor element has been reduced and its flank elevation would be set in further from the side boundary, I concur. In respect of concerns about the loss of the garage, sufficient on-site parking spaces would be available and I note that no objections were raised by the Highways Authority. Therefore, there is no reasonable justification to object to the proposal on these grounds. No other matters raised affect my conclusions on the relevant planning matters.

I have concluded that the two-storey rear extension and the single-storey front extension are acceptable elements of the proposal. As they are physically and functionally severable from the side extension, I shall issue a split decision. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the appeal should be allowed in respect of the two-storey rear extension and the single-storey front extension, subject to the conditions that follow.

A condition requiring the use of matching materials is necessary to safeguard the appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. For the same reason, where render is indicated, its colour and texture shall accord with details submitted to and approved by the Council. The construction or insertion of any additional windows or dormer windows is precluded by condition to preserve the living conditions of nearby residents. I have identified the approved drawings in a condition, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.