Appeal 6006372

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side extension at [site address] , Langho, Lancashire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 3/2025/0880, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s: • 740/1A Location and Site Plan • 740/2A Plans and Elevations

The parking area to the front of the dwelling shall always remain available for parking of vehicles. Vehicle parking areas accessed from the adopted highway must be properly consolidated and surfaced in bound porous materials and subsequently be maintained in good working order at all times thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Retrospective as referred to in the application form and the decision notice does not constitute an act of development. I have dealt with the appeal on the basis that planning permission is being sought for the erection of a single storey side extension, which is reflected in my description of development, in accordance with the drawings submitted.

At the time of my site visit, I saw that development had commenced. I note that what has been constructed appears to differ from that which is shown on the submitted plans. I have considered the appeal on the basis of the information shown on the plans and not what has been constructed on site. The appeal before me is not retrospective, and the commencement of works does not influence my assessment. I have determined the appeal on its planning merits, based on the evidence provided. The appeal has been assessed solely on the basis of the submitted drawings. Any discrepancies between the drawings and the works observed on site are not material to my determination.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow located on a corner plot with its main aspect onto [address]. It features a pantile roof to the front elevation and plain tiles to the rear. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, comprising a mix of bungalows of varied forms and detailing, with two-storey dwellings on the opposite side of the road. This results in an eclectic street scene. Parking is available within the curtilage.

The appeal extension would provide two additional bedrooms and a WC within a side extension which would project towards [address], thereby altering the relationship of the dwelling with the street. The site occupies a corner position, and the extension would be visible within the street scene. Nevertheless, the scale, form and design of the extension are such that it would sit comfortably within its plot and would read as a proportionate and subordinate addition to the host dwelling. The front extension wall is set back from the existing front elevation which reduces the overall massing and the proposed fenestration would also be of similar proportions to that of the existing dwelling. I have also had regard to the relationship of No. [address], which exhibits a broadly comparable gable position adjacent the road, thereby providing contextual support for the proposal.

When viewed from [address], the roof of the extension would incorporate a modest stepped design which would mean that the form would remain subservient to the existing pair of bungalows, both in terms of height and overall width. As a result, the development would not appear unduly prominent or visually intrusive within the street scene.

The Council Officer’s Report raises concerns regarding the front eaves detail and soffit to the front elevation. Whilst this detail varies from that of the existing bungalow, the submitted plans demonstrate that the proposed fascia would be set back from the front elevation of the existing dwelling. This set-back reinforces the subservient nature of the extension, as a result it would not appear dominant or visually intrusive.

I also note the Council’s concerns regarding the specification of the roof materials and the potential for mismatch. However, the submitted drawings clearly specify the works and the materials to be incorporated, providing certainty as to the finished appearance. On this basis, there is no substantive reason to conclude that the development would result in a discordant or inappropriate finish.

The planning history for this site includes a side extension1 approved by the Council, which was subsequently varied with a non-material amendment2. This approval incorporates a slightly more discernible set-down in the front roof slope compared to that proposed in the appeal scheme. However, the overall plan form of 1 Planning Application 3/2012/0034 2 Non Material Application 3/2025/0268 the two proposals is comparable. This approval establishes a clear fallback position for an extension of similar siting and purpose.

In terms of scale the appeal scheme differs primarily in respect of the reduced set-down resulting in a closer alignment with the principal roof form. Whilst this results in a closer visual relationship than the previously approved scheme, it would not cause the extension to appear as an over dominant or incongruous addition in the street scene. I also noted during my site visit that there are similar roof details on other extended properties on [address].

Whilst the appeal scheme differs in certain design respects from the approved scheme, the existence of this fallback position carries substantial weight and indicates that a comparable built form could be implemented lawfully. In this context, the appeal proposal is not considered to result in a level of harm that would justify withholding consent.

Taking all factors into account, I conclude that the proposed development would sit comfortably within the site and would not give rise to material harm. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the wider street scene. It would therefore accord with Policy DMG1 of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development is sympathetic to existing land uses and has a suitable relationship to its surroundings.

I have taken into account the representations referring to the retrospective nature of the development. However, the fact that the works have already commenced does not, in itself, weigh for or against the proposal. The appeal must be determined on its planning merits, having regard to the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the relevant development plan policies. On this basis, the retrospective nature of the application does not alter my assessment or conclusions.

I note the comments from the Parish Council with regard to the works taking place in relation to the boundary fence and the environmental issues associated with regard to the application however these are matters outside my consideration of the appeal.

I also note that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions, and there is no evidence before me to suggest that the development would give rise to harm to highway safety.

The Council’s Officer Report indicates that a sewer runs beneath the footprint of the extension. However, this matter is controlled under separate legislation and falls outside the scope of the planning system. As such, it is not a matter that weighs in the determination of this appeal.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in light of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Given that the development has already commenced, I find that a plans condition is necessary and reasonable in the interests of good planning and to provide certainty.

The Highways Authority have requested the imposition of a condition relating to parking provision and surfacing. Given that this matter was expressly set out within their consultation response, the inclusion of such a condition is appropriate and would not be unexpected to either party. I have amended the wording of the condition, so it is appropriate to this appeal proposal.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.