Single storey kitchen/porch extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 November 2021 by A Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 December 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/M1710/D/21/3278031 13 Yeomans Lane, LIPHOOK, GU30 7PN • 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 Marius Serdenciuc against the decision of East Hampshire District Council. • The application Ref 51439/001, dated 19 March 2021, was refused by notice dated 25 June 2021. • The development proposed is single storey kitchen/porch extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for single storey Kitchen/porch extension, at 13 Yeomans Lane, Liphook, GU30 7PN, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 51439/001, dated 19 March 2021, 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: 1221 PA 00, 1221 EX 01, and 1221 PA 01. 3) The external materials to be used shall match, as closely as possible, in type, colour, and texture those of the existing building unless details of other suitable materials are submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Main Issue 2. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing building and the area. Reasons 3. The existing building is a two storey dwelling that stands within a housing estate. Dwellings in the estate are mainly grouped in terraces. The terraces are staggered to the extent that the building line fronting the roads is not consistent. Most feature lean-to front porches and many of these have been filled in. 4. The forward facing extension would be larger than the existing porches. However, owing to the staggered building line, and in particular the set back of the appeal dwelling relative to its neighbour to the east, it would not be prominent to view. It would adopt a similar lean-to form to the existing porches Appeal Decision APP/M1710/D/21/3278031 2 and would be no more prominent than the extension approved recently by the Council nearby at No. 40 The Avenue. 5. The Council’s Residential Extensions & Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (SPD) recognises that front extensions can be acceptable where the streetscene already includes a staggered building line, which is the case for the appeal proposal. With further reference to the SPD the extension would be subservient and would not project significantly beyond the front wall of the dwelling or be visually prominent. 6. In summary, the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the area. It would accord with Policy CP29 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy 2014, Policy HE2 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review 2006 and the SPD, which together seek to ensure that development proposals are well designed to respect local character. Conditions 7. I have had regard to the planning conditions suggested by the Council. I have considered them against the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans as this provides certainty. I have also imposed a condition to ensure that matching materials are used to safeguard the character of the building and the area. Conclusion 8. For the reasons above, the appeal should be allowed. A Tucker INSPECTOR