Rear single storey extension forming a day room and first floor side extension providing an additional bedroom/ensuite, also an open porch on the frontage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 March 2019 by Sarah Colebourne MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 29th March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q4625/D/19/3219896 4 Heathfield Close, Knowle, Solihull, B93 9EH • 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 William Spittle against the decision of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref PL/2018/02471/MINFHO, dated 15 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 6 November 2018. • The development proposed is described as a rear single storey extension forming a day room and first floor side extension providing an additional bedroom/ensuite, also an open porch on the frontage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear single storey extension forming a day room and first floor side extension providing an additional bedroom/ensuites, also an open porch on the frontage at 4 Heathfield Close, Knowle, Solihull, B93 9EH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PL/2018/02471/MINFHO, dated 15 August 2018, 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: 1515/9, 1515/10, 1515/11, 1515/12, 1515/13, 1515/14, 1515/15. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Reasons 2. The main issue is the effect of the first floor side extension on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the street scene. 3. 4 Heathfield Close is a detached modern dwelling, located in the corner of a residential cul-de-sac of similar properties. An original, attached single storey double garage has been extended and converted to a kitchen and store. This sits at an angle to the main part of the dwelling. The proposal includes a first floor extension above this to provide a bedroom and ensuite with a separate ensuite to serve an existing bedroom. It would have a pitched roof which would step down in three sections. The highest part of the ridge would sit Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/D/19/3219896 2 below that of the main roof with a smaller, slightly lower section below. It would then step down to single storey height, decreasing the mass of the building towards the side boundary. This would ensure a subservient appearance, which the Council itself acknowledges. However, it considers that the roof would be incongruous and contrived. Its comments to the appellant refer to its Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) ‘House Extension Guidelines’ (2010) which requires that extensions should run parallel with the main dwelling. I have noted, however, that the SPD promotes the consideration of individual site circumstances and its guidance should be applied flexibly. 4. In this case, the main part of the dwelling turns the corner to follow the line of the road. The corner position of the dwelling dictates that an attached extension should follow the side boundary with no 3 so that it too follows the line of the road and faces across the head of the cul-de-sac rather than across the front garden of no 3. The adjacent dwelling at no 5 has a garage block which follows the same principle. I therefore find that the design approach taken by the appellant is appropriate. In any case, given the discreet siting in the corner of the cul-de-sac it would not be unduly prominent or bulky in the street scene. Window styles would reflect those of the main dwelling and a condition for materials would ensure that its appearance is acceptable. The proposed extension would therefore reflect the siting and design of the dwelling and would sit comfortably within the street scene. 5. I have noted the appellant’s references to other extensions elsewhere but those do not appear to be angled as in this case. They are not directly comparable and I have therefore considered this proposal on its own merits. 6. I have noted that the Council has raised no objection to the rear day room extension or front porch and from what I have seen I have no reason to disagree. These are modestly sized extensions whose scale, form and design reflect those of the dwelling and the area. 7. Neither has it raised any objection to the proposed extensions in terms of the living conditions of neighbouring residents. I have, however, had regard to the objections from local residents but I am satisfied that given the distances between the extensions and neighbouring properties there would not be any undue overbearing, loss of privacy or light, or noise for neighbouring residents. 8. In addition to the standard commencement condition, a condition is necessary requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, in order to provide certainty. A condition requiring matching external materials is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area. 9. For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling or the street scene. It would accord with development plan policy P15 in the Solihull Local Plan 2013 which seeks to achieve high quality design. There are no material considerations that justify determining the appeal otherwise and the appeal should be allowed. Sarah Colebourne Inspector