Appeal 6006419

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Ground and first floor extensions and alterations to include: a ground floor utility room located between the garage and main building; and a first floor extension providing a new master suite above the existing snug and utility room at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01872 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 9356-03-0200 PL1; 9356-03-0004 PL1; 9356-03-0100 PL; 9356-03-0101 PL1; 9356-03-0110 PL1;

Materials used in the external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall match in colour, texture and appearance, those employed in the existing building.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area including the site.

The appeal site (No.78) is a substantial detached two-storey house dating from the mid-twentieth century with a single storey side extension and garage. It is located within a row of similar substantial houses in good-sized plots along the south-western side of [address]/A52, all set within open countryside in the green belt.

The proposal provides additional accommodation without extending the overall footprint of the dwelling, by infilling an inset courtyard at ground floor level and inserting a main bedroom suite above part of the single storey wing at the side of the main block. Although the proposal would raise the height of the side wing and this would be apparent in some views, the extension would appear subservient with its ridge line well set down from the roof line of the main dwelling.

The Council refer to the [name] (RDC) but only with regard to C6.7 which sets a limit of 50% for extensions in the open countryside. It is not disputed that the proposal would result in a small excess of 8% over the 50% limit set in the RDC, but this is potentially within the tolerance of the assessment method. Having, in the officer report, recognised the lack of impact upon openness of the green belt and the contained and limited nature of the proposal it is not explained how a small numeric infringement of a design code would ‘fail to reinforce local characteristics’ nor in what regard the resulting development would be ‘out of keeping with the character of the local area’. The Council have failed to demonstrate that any actual planning harm would arise.

The approach of the designer has been, as much as possible, to fully integrate the required additional accommodation into the existing structure and plan form. It is my assessment that the proposal would, subject to the use of appropriate materials, merge successfully with the existing house and, in the broadest sense, accord with good design practice and in that regard constitute sustainable development.

The appellant points to a fallback opportunity to extend the property within the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO). Given the configuration of the site and the contained nature of the works which are the subject of this appeal, it is apparent that a large rear extension could introduce significant planning harm in terms of extending visible built form with an associated impact upon the character and appearance of the area. This also weighs heavily in support of the appeal.

Overall, I consider there would be little conflict with Policy 10 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1 (2014) or Policy 1 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 (2019) which seek that development should be sympathetic to local character and enhance local identity. Consequently, and taking all matters raised into account, my reasoning directs that the appeal should succeed subject to the usual plans and timing conditions together with a materials condition to ensure visual consistency.