Appeal 6007468

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the erection of a 2-storey side/rear extension to semi-detached dormer bungalow and addition of open porch to front.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a pitched roof addition to existing garage at [site address] in accordance with application reference CHE/25/00945/HOU, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule at the end of this decision.

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

The appeal property is a semi-detached dormer bungalow of traditional style with red brick walls and a tiled roof within a residential cul-de-sac of similar properties. While some of these dwellings have been extended or altered, the cul-de-sac retains a coherent character derived from its original layout and built form.

The proposal has 3 main elements: a 2-storey side and rear extension, an open front porch and a new dual pitched roof to the detached garage. I have considered each of these components individually and in combination.

To the side, the proposal would significantly widen the existing building and enlarge the existing dormer across much of the enlarged frontage. Although a limited setback is proposed at ground-floor level, the new first-floor element would align closely with the principal elevation with the main roof carried over the proposed extension. As a result, the appeal scheme would continue the frontage of the existing dwelling rather than appear as a subordinate addition.

This arrangement would significantly alter the scale and proportions of the host building. When seen from the road, there would be little visual distinction between the original dwelling and the proposed extension. With a noticeably wider frontage and a large single dormer across most of the front elevation, the proposal would set the completed dwelling noticeably apart from the established pattern of properties within the cul-de-sac, where extended properties generally retain a clearer distinction between the original dwelling and later additions.

At the side and rear, the proposal would also introduce a substantial 2-storey extension incorporating flat-roofs, parapet detailing, extensive upper-floor cladding and large glazing units. While contemporary architecture can relate successfully to more traditional style buildings, this depends upon achieving a coherent relationship with the host dwelling. In this case, the new side and rear extension would create a series of large flat-roofed forms which, by virtue of their width, depth and overall massing, would appear unduly bulky and dominant.

I acknowledge that the existing dormers do provide flat-roofed elements to the dwelling. However, these are relatively modest features within a predominantly pitched-roof composition. The proposed side and rear extension would operate at a different scale. The pronounced horizontal rooflines wrapping around the rear corner of the property and extensive upper-floor cladding would accentuate the overall scale and bulk of the addition. Taken together with the vertical emphasis of the new windows, the overall architectural treatment would relate uncomfortably to the established built form, materials, horizontal pattern of fenestration and modest proportions of the dwelling. Whilst darker cladding may reduce visual prominence to some extent, it would not overcome the visual mass created by the scale, form and composition of the side and rear extension. For these reasons, the new side and rear addition would overwhelm the simpler form, traditional style and pitched roof of the existing dwelling, to the detriment of its character and appearance.

The appellant draws attention to the extension at [address]. Although that property has been substantially altered, it does not exhibit the same combination of a substantially widened frontage, enlarged single dormer and a large contemporary rear addition proposed here. As it is not directly comparable with the proposal, I attach limited weight to the extension at No 6 in support of the appeal. In any event, the development must be assessed on its own merits, which I have done.

Much of the new rear and side extension would be screened from the road by the host building. The appellants have also explained that the public right of way to the east is enclosed by boundary treatments and vegetation that would shield views towards the appeal property. Nevertheless, the new side and rear extension would be visible from the back gardens of neighbouring properties and from within the site, where its scale, massing and architectural treatment would be readily apparent and would appear incongruous in its context.

Overall, the widened frontage, enlarged dormer and substantial flat-roofed side and rear addition would result in a cumbersome and dominant enlargement of the dwelling. The side extension would fail to appear subordinate to the original building, whilst the rear element would introduce a substantial contemporary form that would relate poorly to the host dwelling. The proposal would therefore fail to achieve a coherent and proportionate relationship with the host dwelling and would be harmful to the character and appearance of both the property and the local area.

For these reasons, this element of the proposal is contrary to Policy CLP20 of the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan, the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Successful Places and the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, these promote good design and aim to ensure that development responds positively to local character and adds to the overall quality of the local area.

I note that the submitted design has been influenced by the irregular shape of the plot, drainage and the need to retain access arrangements. I also note that the increase in dormer height arises from insulation requirements. However, these matters do not overcome the harm that I have identified.

The proposed porch would be a proportionate addition and appropriate in style and materials. It would not, in isolation, appear out of keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the wider street scene, which includes a sizeable porch at [address].

Nevertheless, this component of the appeal scheme forms part of the remodelling of the front elevation with its wider frontage and altered dormer. I am not satisfied that the porch is visually and functionally severable from these wider works. On that basis, the new porch cannot be considered independently of the proposed scheme to enlarge and alter the main dwelling. As such, a split decision in this regard would not be appropriate.

The proposal would provide additional living accommodation and allow the internal layout of No 4 to be reconfigured to better suit the appellants' needs. Improvements to accessibility, natural light and energy efficiency would also arise if the changes to the main dwelling were to proceed. These are benefits of the scheme and weigh in favour of the appeal. However, these considerations do not outweigh the identified harm.

The replacement of the existing flat roof to the detached garage with a pitched roof is a modest and self-contained alteration to a building that is physically and functionally separate from the main dwelling. The new roof would reflect those of other garages in the same cul-de-sac and it would improve the appearance of the existing structure. For these reasons, this element of the appeal scheme would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the appeal property and the local area. It therefore complies with the policies and guidance cited by the Council.

Unlike the new porch, the new garage roof is severable from the remainder of the scheme and so I am able to issue a split decision that grants planning permission solely for it. In doing so, I have attached a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, a condition is also required to ensure that the external materials match those of the existing building.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed 2-storey side and rear extension and the front porch. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the pitched roof over the detached garage subject to conditions.

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

That part of the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Refs 24124-MAD-DR-A-0- 0001 REV 02, 24124-MAD-DR-A-0020 REV 02, 24124-MAD-DR-A-0021 REV 02, 24124-MAD-DR-A-0900 REV 03, 24124-MAD-DR-A-0901 REV 03, 24124-MAD-DR-A-0902 REV 02, 24124-MAD-DR-A-0903 REV 02, 24124- MAD-DR-A-1001 REV 03, 24124-MAD-DR-A-1002 REV 03, 24124-[name]-3000 REV 03, 24124-MAD-DR-A-3001 REV 03 and 24124-MAD-DR-A- 3002 REV 03.

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