Appeal 6005600

For the reasons that follow, the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of conservatory and outbuilding and erection of a two-storey side and rear extension to form additional living accommodation at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, No P25/02434//HH, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

[name] 2014, permission was refused for a similar scheme to that the subject of this appeal (Application No P24/01688/HH). The reasons for refusal in that case related to effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and visual amenity, and arboricultural impacts.

The current planning appplication was accompanied by an arboricultural report that included a scheme of mitigation planting. Subject to that planting, the Council takes no issue on this point. The main issue in this case therefore, relates to the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property comprises a substantial detached two-storey dwelling on the north side of Stonehill (A431) within an extensive curtilage. The site, which is wider at the back than the front, is flanked along its northeastern (side) boundary by a public footpath/cycle way that runs along the top of a deep, concrete-sided cutting through which the A4174 ring road, a busy dual carriageway, runs. The dwelling is set well back from the front boundary with Stonehill. It is also set off the side boundary with the adjacent footpath/cycleway, with the property boundary here being defined by a substantial pennant stone wall of varying height and the walls of a detached single/two-storey outbuilding.

It is proposed to replace an existing conservatory to the rear of the property and to construct what is effectively a one and a half storey extension to the side of the house, with the first floor accommodation being partially contained within the pitched roof space, returning along the northeastern (side) boundary, connecting with the detached outbuilding, part of which would be demolished. The form of the extension proposed along the northeastern boundary is intended to help mitigate road noise from the adjacent dual carriageway. I also understand that, on occasion, use of the adjacent footpath/cycleway gives rises to issues of security and anti-social behaviour, with the extension also helping to guard against such incidents.

The extension would be constructed in materials that tie in with the existing house, namely pennant stone walls to the front elevation and along the ground floor of the side elevation adjacent to the footpath/cycleway, with rendered walls at the upper level on both the side elevation and garden facing walls, which would reflect the render on the existing outbuilding. Other elements of design reflect characteristic features on the main house, including the use of a brick solider course along the northeast (footpath/cycleway) elevation, which echoes a band across the front elevation of the main house between the first and second floors. In addition, the upper floor accommodation would have dormer windows that straddle the eaves line to the front and garden facing elevations, similar to an existing one and a half storey addition to the western side of the property. To the front, the glazing bar pattern in the windows would match the existing sash windows on the main house. All told, I consider that the scheme represents high quality design in its context.

There is no doubt that the development proposed is extensive. However, notwithstanding its overall footprint, the relatively low eaves and ridgeline, narrow span and arched ground floor openings to the garden elevation, which give the extension much of the character and feel of a range of cart sheds/stables, mean that it would not compete with or dominate the main house, particularly in terms of the front elevation.

Whilst the long elevation along the adjacent footpath/cycleway would be only slightly taller than the existing outbuilding which abuts the footpath/cycle way at the northeastern end of the curtilage, it would be significantly taller than the existing stone boundary walling. However, this elevation has no impact on adjacent dwellings and would not be seen in the wider context of the settlement, being largely screened in views from the east/southeast across the A4174 cutting, by substantial vegetation on the retaining embankment.

In terms of the experience of those using the footpath/cycleway, there would be very little change in the appearance of the property as experienced on approach from the north/northeast, since the view is already of the existing outbuilding, including its east facing dormer window, which would largely screen the extension from this vantage point. Similarly, on approach in the other direction, from Stonehill, the longer part of the extension would sit behind, and would therefore be screened by, that part of the proposed extension to the side of the house.

In essence, the increase in height along the side boundary would only be experienced by footpath/cycleway users as they passed next to the site. That experience is already defined by the high stone boundary wall to the property curtilage, with established vegetation atop the adjacent cutting on the opposite side. With the extension on place, passersby would still experience stone walling https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 of 5 to the one side, but with rendered walling above. Moreover, the upper part of the elevation along the footpath/ cycleway would include a number of large ‘blind’ windows defined by reconstructed sone surrounds, with a pair of doors at ground floor level, which would help articulate the elevation. In my view, whilst the experience of users would change as a consequence of the proposed extension, the overall impact would not be materially adverse. I note, in this regard, that the Council’s public rights of way officer raises no objection to the proposal.

The absence of any material harm in terms of character and appearance mean that there is no conflict with policy CS1 of the [site address] Local Plan: [name] (December 2013), with policies PSP1 and PSP38 of the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (November 2017) or with guidance in n the Council’s Householder Design Guide (March 2021), which together and among other things promote high quality design that integrates successfully with the host building, responding constructively to the main building and its surroundings.

I have found no material harm as a consequence of the development proposed in terms of any effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. There is no conflict in this regard with the provisions of the development plan or with the National Planning Policy Framework, which among other thing promotes high quality design. Whilst the appellant referred to benefits of the development in terms of noise attenuation and security, that has not informed my decision – I find the development to be acceptable on its own merits. So, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.

With regard to conditions, in addition to the standard time limit on commencement of development (1), a condition specifying the relevant plans is required in order to create certainty for all parties (2). A condition securing the submission of samples of the external materials to be used is also necessary, in the interest of visual amenity (3).

The application was accompanied by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name] (AIA). Section 5.13 of the officer’s report confirms that provided that mitigation planting for the two trees that would be lost as a consequence of the development is secured, then there are no objections in this regard. The AIA also recommended protection during construction of the root protection areas of the trees to be retained. Conditions are required to secure those measures in the interest of visual amenity (4 and 5).

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan 316-L-001 Existing Site Plan 316-PL-100 Proposed Site Plan 316-PL-101 [address] Plans 316-PL-102 [address] Elevations 316-PL-103 [name] 316-PL-104 Proposed Ground Floor Plan 316-PL-105 Proposed First Floor Plan 316-PL-106 [name] 1 316-PL-107 [name] 2 316-PL-108 [name] 3 316-PL-[address] 316-PL-[address] 316-PL-111

Prior to the commencement of development above slab level, samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented using the approved materials.

Prior to commencement of development, details of replacement trees for those to be removed, as detailed in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name] (CPS Ground Ltd) submitted with the planning application, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details to be submitted shall include a timetable for implementation. The replacement trees shall be planted in accordance with the approved details and timetable. Any replacement tree which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species.

No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until trees identified as being retained in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 of 5 [name] (CPS Ground Ltd) submitted with the planning application, have been protected in accordance with the details set out at Section 10 of the same document. The approved protection measures shall be retained until completion of construction works. ---------------------End of Conditions Schedule--------------------- https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 of 5