Erection of an extension to the existing bungalow

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 June 2018 by K E Down MA (Oxon) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25th June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3198098 Woodcroft, Frogs Hall Lane, Haultwick, SG11 1JH  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr M Everett against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council.  The application Ref 3/17/2960/HH, dated 21 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 March 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of an extension to the existing bungalow. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an extension to the existing bungalow at Woodcroft, Frogs Hall Lane, Haultwick, SG11 1JH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/17/2960/HH, dated 21 December 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1313_300 B, 1313_301 B, 1313_302 B, 1313_303 B, 1313_304 B, 1313_305 B and 1313_306 B. Main Issue 2. There is one main issue which is t he effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding rural area. Reasons 3. The appeal dwelling is a modest bungalow, set close to the rear boundary of a large plot at the edge of the rural settlement of Haultwick. It lies adjacent to open countryside and within the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt as defined in the adopted East Herts Local Plan Second Review (LP), 2007. Other properties of mixed size, age and design front Frogs Hall Lane to the south west of the appeal site. There is a detached double garage at the site which lies close to the front boundary of the property. This is understood to have been permitted in 1975. Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/3198098 2 4. The proposed extension would be single storey with a pitched roof and would link the dwelling with the garage. The garage would also be converted to living space. The Council estimates that, taken together with the garage, the extension would result in a 58% increase in floor space over the size of the original bungalow. Having regard to the overall size of the extension and existing garage, including their height and depth, I agree with the Council that in itself this would not amount to a disproportionate addition. 5. The extension would be clearly visible from Frogs Hall Lane but although it would, together with the garage, form a long front projection to the dwelling its predominantly glazed design and limited height and depth would result in an attractive, light-permeable structure that was of a scale compatible with the host dwelling. It would also provide a sensible plot layout, clearly defining the frontage from the more private land beyond the buildings. 6. Views from Frog Hall Lane, between the bungalow and garage towards mature vegetation, would be limited by the extension and it would also be visible from the public byway beyond the end of the lane. However, whilst it would change the appearance of the site, the extension would have a pleasing form and would not extend built development towards the rural area or close to the site boundaries. Neither would it unacceptably block views. Overall, the site would remain a large, open plot with a limited amount of built development, thus retaining its low density character. The proposed extension would therefore be compatible with its rural location, adjacent to the open countryside. 7. It is concluded on the first main issue that the proposed extension would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding rural area. In consequence there would be no conflict with LP Policies GBC3, ENV1 or ENV5 or with the National Planning Policy Framework which, taken together, allow limited extensions to existing dwellings in the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt provided they are of a high standard of design and reflect local distinctiveness and do not disproportionately alter the size of the original dwelling or intrude into the openness or rural qualities of the surrounding area. 8. In addition to the statutory commencement condition, the Council suggests a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. I agree this is necessary for the avoidance of doubt. 9. I am aware that a previous appeal (APP/J1915/D/17/3192489) for extensions to Woodcroft was dismissed in April 2018. However, that related to significantly larger and more intrusive extensions and I am satisfied that my decision in this case is not inconsistent with the findings of my colleague. 10. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the representations from a third party regarding biodiversity and landscaping and comments from the appellants regarding extensions to other properties nearby, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. K E Down INSPECTOR