DC Casebook: Householder development - Enforcement upheld on design grounds

Planning, 15 August 2008

A condition imposed on a permission for the extension required the work to be carried out in matching materials. The council contended that a render finish with mock Tudor details ought to have been applied to reflect the structure of the original house. The inspector disagreed, observing that the approved plans demonstrated no such details. He held that "matching materials" could include red bricks such as those used on the original house, even though they were painted white on the front elevation.

The council also regarded the roof pitch as unacceptable. The inspector discovered an error in the drawings that meant that the scheme was incapable of implementation as permitted. However, he found that a parapet detail on the eaves along the flank elevation of the extension gave the roof a truncated appearance. He heard that the ownership of the adjacent house had changed and the new owner was willing to allow the eaves to overhang his property. He agreed to vary the notice to require an eaves construction to match that on the original house.

The inspector was also concerned that the windows of the property were wider than those permitted, resulting in an imbalance in the ratio of wall to window. He required the windows to be replaced in accordance with the approved plans. Overall, he concluded that three of the four elements of the extension criticised by the council detracted from the appearance of the building and harmed the streetscape.

DCS Number 100-056-432

Inspector Keith Turner; Hearing.