Appeal 6004564

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of existing detached garage to habitable accommodation and construction of a single-storey link extension between dwelling and garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: R/2025/0752/RS, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name]. 004: Site Plans and 003 [name]: [name] & Elevations.

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

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the host property and area in general; and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address].

The appeal property is a detached bungalow located on a corner plot within a predominantly residential area characterised by modest bungalows, many of which have been extended and altered over time. I note that the appeal site benefits from a larger than average plot and contains a substantial single-storey rear extension, a detached garage, and a timber outbuilding, whilst retaining external private amenity space.

There is a high boundary treatment around the plot which screens to a degree a large proportion of the existing single-storey rear extension, the roof form is clearly visible form the streetscene along with the garage.

The proposed development would involve the conversion and extension to the existing garage to form habitable space and the construction of a single-storey link extension between the garage and the main dwelling. The Council considers that the cumulative extent of development would result in overdevelopment and a lack of subservience.

The single-storey extension and garage are established structures of significant built form. The proposed link extension would largely occupy the narrow gap between the existing rear extension and the garage, thereby consolidating built form. Whilst the garage width would be increased this would not significantly project development further into external amenity space of the plot. As such, the proposal would not materially increase the overall footprint beyond the existing developed envelope.

In terms of design, the extension would be single storey with a hipped roof form. The proposed ridge height would be comparable to existing single-storey elements on the site. Whilst the cumulative scale of development is noted, the resulting form would appear as a coherent arrangement rather than an incongruous or overly dominant addition. I find that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host property and area in general.

With regard to the main issue relating to character and appearance there is no conflict with Policy SD4 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan (2018) (the Local Plan) which seeks amongst other things to ensure developments are designed to a high standard, respecting the character of the site and its surroundings.

There is also no conflict with the [name] and [name] (2013) (the SPD) which amongst other things seeks to protect the character and appearance of existing dwellings and the surrounding area.

The proposed development would extend along much of the shared boundary with No. [address]; however, I observed during my site visit that the existing single-storey extension and detached garage already establishes a substantial built presence in this location. The proposed link extension would infill the gap between the garage and the existing rear extension, rather than introducing built form into an otherwise open aspect.

The development would remain single-storey, and the hipped roof design whilst higher than the current garage gable would not exacerbate the sense of massing when viewed from the neighbouring property. Whilst the structure would be visible above the boundary treatment, the overall height would be comparable to other existing single-storey elements on the site.

The separation between the built form and the neighbouring garden, together with the presence of a boundary fence and existing structures within the No. 18’s garden, would limit the perception of enclosure. The infilling of a narrow gap between two existing buildings would not materially alter the established outlook.

I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address].

With regard to the main issue relating to living conditions there is no conflict with Policy SD4 of the Local Plan and the SPD which seek amongst other things to protect the amenities of existing occupiers of neighbouring properties.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be allowed.

I have imposed conditions relating to the standard time limit for commencement of development and plans to be adhered to as this provides certainty. I have also added a condition concerning materials to ensure a satisfactory appearance.