Appeal 6007873

The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension and outbuilding (garden/pool room) at [site address] , Gloucester [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, 25/01033/FUL 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 hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Plan No 836.05 [address] Elevations and Floor Plan, Plan No 836.04 [name] and Block Plan, Plan No 836.03 [name] and [name].

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

The development compromises of two distinct elements: the erection of an outbuilding (garden/pool room) and the erection of a two storey side extension. The Council raise no concerns within the officer report to the outbuilding (garden/pool room). I agree with the Council on this matter and as no other concerns are raised, I am content to deal only with the proposed two storey side extension in my

The Council also changed the description of the development, and I have used this description which I note has also been used by the appellant in the appeal documentation.

Reference has been made by the Council to the proposed eaves of the development crossing the boundary line with No 106. However, from the information confirmed in the appeal documentation and my observations on site, I note that the development falls wholly within the red line boundary. In any event the Council determined the application on the basis of the plans submitted and I have done likewise.

The Council requested a site visit to be made to the neighbouring property but there was no one at this address at the time of my visit. I was able to view the neighbouring property from the appeal site, and I am satisfied that I have sufficient information to determine this appeal.

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposal on (i) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area and (ii) the living conditions of the neighbours at [address] (No 106) in terms of any overlooking.

Located on a busy main road on the edge of Gloucester city centre, the appeal property, [site address] (No 104) is a semi detached property set back from the public highway behind a wide grass verge which includes street furniture and a bus stop. The immediate area has a relatively mixed character. Dwellings in the wider vicinity of the site vary in size, age and appearance including a large block of flats on the opposite side of [address] and a petrol filling station with food store to their east. On the south side of [address], the dwellings are mostly semi-detached similar in size and design with generous gardens/hard surfaced areas to the front that are generally enclosed by walls and fences.

No 104 has a front gable that projects forward in front of the remainder of the front elevation, and an attached side garage with a flat roof. The first floor side extension would be built over the existing garage extending forward along the side elevation of the front gable, with a small set back from its front elevation. The Council express concern that the set back distance is insufficient and that the extension would not be subservient to the existing building. However the hipped roof as shown on the drawings, and the narrower width of the extension relative to the width of the front gable would help to break up the overall mass of the building and ensure that the extension would remain generally subservient to the host dwelling.

I acknowledge that Nos 102 and 104 are both of a similar original appearance and that the proposed extension would reduce the symmetry of the front elevations when these two properties are read together. However, the screening effect of existing vegetation together with the relatively wide highway verge means such views in the wider streetscene would be limited. In any event, No 104 is read more readily in the streetscene with the neighbouring detached property at No 106 which is significantly set forward. Given this, the resulting scale and position of the dwelling as extended would not be significantly obtrusive. [name] note there are differences apparent within the wider streetscene, including extensions to Nos 98 and [address] which contribute to a varied appearance in the area. Taking these factors together, I find that the development would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the area.

For these reasons, I conclude on this issue that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of either the host dwelling or surrounding area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy A9 of the Gloucester City Plan 2011-2031 (adopted 2023) (GCP) and Policy SD4 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] 2011-2031 (adopted 2017) (CS) which together seek to secure high quality design which respond to the context of a site and its surroundings. Nor is there any conflict with the Gloucester City Council Home

(SPD) insofar as it seeks to promote extensions of an appropriate style, form and design.

The neighbouring attached dwelling, No 106 has two side facing windows, one of which is a secondary window to a bedroom, which have an outlook towards the appeal property. The main outlook from the new window proposed in the front elevation of No 104 would be towards its front garden and the public highway. The angle of view towards No 106 would therefore be very limited. Given the juxtapositing of the two properties, the size of the new window and the proposed internal layout of the extension, the introduction of the window would not cause overlooking to a level that I would find significant harm to the living conditions of the residents of No 106.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 106. It would therefore not conflict with the general design and general environmental policies set out in Policies SD4 and SD14 of the CS and Policy A9 of the GCP which seeks to safeguard the living conditions of neighbours.

Conditions in respect of timescales and specifying the approved plans are necessary as these provide certainty. A condition regarding the materials to be used is also necessary to ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory. The Council refer to a condition in relation to glazing and restricted opening to the window of the front elevation but in my view such a condition is not necessary.

The appellant has raised a number of concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the case including a lack of communication and that inadequate or incorrect consideration was given to various aspects of the application. In determining the appeal, I have only had regard to the planning merits of the case.

For the reasons given above having considered the development plan and all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed as set out in the formal decision notice above.