Orangery and en-suite to front elevation of bungalow

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 July 2019 by Hilary Senior BA(Hons) MCD MRTPI by Susan Ashworth BA (Hons) BPL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 1 August 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/H4315/D/19/3228412 6b Eccleston Gardens, St Helens, Merseyside, WA10 3BN • 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 Daniel McCaul against the decision of St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref P/2019/0171/HHFP, dated 28 February 2019, was refused by notice dated 2 May 2019. • The development proposed is orangery and en-suite to front elevation of bungalow. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an orangery and en-suite to front elevation of bungalow at 6b Eccleston Gardens, St Helens, Merseyside, WA10 3BN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/2019/0171/HHFP, dated 28 February 2019, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing and Proposed Floor Plans 19005E 1 REV A, Existing and Proposed Elevations amended on 30 April 2019, Location Plan. 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. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of 6b Eccleston Gardens and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The site is a detached bungalow and its gardens located on the corner of Eccleston Gardens and Hill School Road. The estate in the local area consists Appeal Decision APP/H4315/D/19/3228412 2 of a wide range of mainly detached single and two storey dwellings, with a variety of roof lines and designs. 5. The bungalow sits in a substantial plot, elevated from the road, with a low wall and railings demarking the boundary to the highway. It is set back from the highway, with a parking area and lawns surrounding it. The bedroom and garage project forward on each side of the arched main entrance. 6. The proposal is to create an en-suite bathroom and orangery to the front of the bungalow, which would infill the space between the existing bedroom and garage. The extension would not protrude further than the existing bedroom and would be set back from the existing garage. There would be a flat roof with an orangery lantern element to the roof, which would be at a lower level to the existing roof and would not break the roofline. 7. Front extensions can be prominent additions to dwellings. However, in this case, the extension would not protrude beyond the original dwelling but would sit comfortably between the two existing front wings. The proposed materials would match those of the existing building and the flat roof would align with the eaves and as such would not dominate or detract from the massing or form of the existing roof. The lantern, whilst not a feature of the original building, would be a discreet and visually lightweight structure. Moreover, when viewed from the highway, the roof form and the lantern would not be unduly prominent. The additional window openings, which have been amended to ensure that they are central on the building, would balance the appearance of the bungalow. Consequently, the proposed extension would be a subordinate addition to the building that would respect its scale and appearance. 8. Given the variety in the design of dwellings in the locality, and as the proposal would respect the character of the bungalow and not be unduly prominent in the street scene, the proposal would not be detrimental to the character or appearance of the area. 9. For the reasons above I conclude on the main issue that the proposed extension would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or that of the surrounding area and therefore would not conflict with Policy GEN 8: Householder Developments, of the St Helens Unitary Development Plan which seeks to ensure that extensions respect the character and appearance of the original dwelling as well as its local setting. Conditions 10. In addition to the standard timescale condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. I have also imposed a condition relating to materials in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. Hilary Senior APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision APP/H4315/D/19/3228412 3 Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Susan Ashworth INSPECTOR