Appeal 6004501

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to erect a single storey rear/side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01575/FULH, 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 the approved plan no. 25:1610:01A ([name] dated 22/12/25).

The Application Form describes the proposal as a “single storey flat-roof rear and side extension”. However, that description does not reflect the pitched-roof design shown in the submitted plans. For accuracy, I have used the description given in the Council’s notice of decision in both the heading and the formal decision above. I am mindful that this description was also given in the Appeal Form, so I do not consider that it would prejudice any of the parties to proceed on this basis.

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

[address] is a wide road lined with generously sized semi-detached properties, like the appeal building, within an established residential area. The appeal site is a corner plot located at the junction with [address], one of a number of residential streets intersecting [address].

Gardens at the side of corner buildings generally maintain spacious gaps between the side walls of properties and the footway. Nonetheless, there are some examples of single-storey side extensions to dwellings at junctions along [address], including at Nos. 258 and 263. Their set-back from the frontage and limited scale maintain the sense of openness. As well as vegetation within the appeal site’s garden, the built form is softened by nearby street trees and the wide grassed verges at the edge of the footway beside the appeal site.

The appeal building appears as part of the group of similarly scaled and designed properties that run between the junctions with [address] and [address]. These properties share prominent unifying features - notably the broadly symmetrical catslide roofs, projecting bay windows, and gables at the [address] elevation - that together make a positive contribution to this streetscene.

The Council’s Design and [name] 2009 states that in order to avoid appearing overbearing or dominant in relation to the host property, side extensions should be designed to appear subservient to the parent building. This can generally be achieved by ensuring the extension is set back behind the existing building frontage line.

Whilst its entrance is on [address], the dwelling is more clearly read as part of the group of properties fronting [address] due to their shared design features. This is also reinforced by the fact that the appeal building’s side elevation projects beyond the consistent front building line of properties on [address]. In addition, it is set some distance away from its closest neighbour on [address] owing to the length of its rear garden.

I therefore consider its ‘frontage’ to be the characterful [address] elevation. The proposed ground floor extension would be modest in terms of its footprint and height. In combination with the small off-set from the side boundary and moderate set-back from the frontage, the proposal would ensure a subservient appearance and maintain the existing spacious quality of the streetscene at this junction.

There is no substantive evidence that a tree would need to be removed, as the Council suggests. However, as the proposal involves works close to existing garden planting, pruning would reasonably be required. That said, the loss of vegetation likely to be required would not cause material harm to the streetscene as the front garden vegetation, surrounding street trees and grassed verges would all remain.

Concluding on this, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would comply with the relevant provisions of Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM1, DM3 and DM6 of the Council’s Development Management Document (2015). Amongst other things, those policies seek to ensure development that reinforces local distinctiveness by respecting the character of the site and context, including through its form and layout.

Although the reason for refusal given in the Council’s notice of decision refers to the National Design Guide, it has not set out any details of the conflict it finds in relation to this. As its objectives broadly conform with those of the relevant policies identified above, I find no conflict with this document.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interests of certainty. As the submitted plan states the materials to be used, a condition regarding materials would not be necessary.

For the reasons given, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.