Appeal 6004380

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey extension to the front at [site address] Hilderthorpe, Nunthorpe, Middlesbrough, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/0588/FUL, 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 be carried out in accordance with drawings Proposed Site Block & [name] AJR25:07 03; and [name] & Elevations AJR25:07 02.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces (including walls, roof & windows) of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building, or shall be in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The Council requested that I enter the site to view the front garden and the internal arrangement of the dwelling, and I was able to do so at my visit. The Council also referred to a number of neighbouring properties, and I was able to view these from the public highway.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the streetscape.

The appeal site consists of a detached dwelling located in a pleasant suburban setting. There are a variety of designs of dwelling in the vicinity, although the appeal site is part of a group of dwellings characterised by a stepped back arrangement along the streetscape. Most of the dwellings that make up this stepped back group have been subject to a number of alterations and extensions and do not appear as a group with a homogenous design. The host dwelling has previously been extended to the front at ground floor level with a pitched roof extension including a porch and sun room over part of the front elevation and projecting to the side. This includes French windows on the front elevation, but this does not appear to be incongruous given the variety of designs in the streetscape.

The proposal includes the conversion of an integral garage to a bedroom, although this conversion itself does not require planning permission. The element of the proposal which forms the basis of this appeal is a ground floor extension to the front which would continue the extant front extension across the full width of the elevation. The proposal would complement the existing extension, and even though it would result in an extension projecting across the front elevation at ground floor level it would still be viewed as a subservient feature to the host building. The design of the windows of the proposal would be of a domestic scale and would not appear as incongruous features within this varied streetscape.

The stepped back arrangement of the dwelling would still be apparent at first floor level and above, and indeed at ground floor level the cumulative extensions to the front would be viewed against the projecting gable wall of a neighbouring dwelling. The proposal would also retain a step back in the front elevation at first floor level. The Council’s Urban Design SPD1 sets out that extensions at the front of houses are generally unacceptable in principle due to an extremely conspicuous and inappropriate appearance. However, the proposal is an extension that complements the host building and streetscape. On that basis, the proposal would comply with the advice of the SPD regarding well-designed extensions.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host building and the streetscape. The proposal would therefore not conflict with the design and visual appearance requirements of Policies DC1 and CS5 of the [name] 2008 or Policies CR2 and CR3 of the emerging Local Plan 2025. The proposal would also not conflict with the advice of the [name] regarding well-designed front extensions.

Reference has been made to the personal circumstances of the appellant as well as potential amendments to the proposal. However, as I have concluded that the proposal is acceptable in principle I do not need to consider these matters further.

The Council has not proposed any new conditions, although I have had regard to the Council’s Delegated Report on the appeal proposal as well as conditions placed on the recent planning permission ref: 25/0194/FUL for extensions to the dwelling. In addition to the standard 3 year time limitation for commencement, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans and documents in the interests of certainty. A condition in respect of materials is appropriate in respect of character and appearance.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR 1 Middlesbrough’s Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document 2013