Appeal 3264858

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the host property, and the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] is set in the middle of a small row of properties which extend from [address]. However, vehicular access is from [site address] with [name] set behind the gardens and garages of 1 to 11 (odds) [address]. The appellant explains that the property was originally semi-detached, however an additional property was added to the side of 1 [name]. The resultant terrace has hipped ends which is also reflective of the roof form to the pair of semis to the other side (3 and 4 [name]).

The proposal would result in a number of alterations to the property. The Council has raised no objection to the front porch, and I have no reason to disagree. The side extension, which includes a gable ended roof form running off the existing ridge line, would extend the property up to the side boundary. The revised roof form would also facilitate a rear extension with accommodation in the roof created via a flat crown roof and dormers linking with the existing rear projection.

Ashford Local Plan policy HOU8 requires extensions to be of a suitable size, scale and materials to the existing dwelling. The proposal adds significant bulk to the property especially at the roof level. It would create an asymmetrical roof form to the terrace and significantly diminish the existing gap between the two groups of properties. In my opinion, the form of development is both out of keeping with the host property, and visually intrusive in the street scene. [name] are somewhat distinct from [address] there are views along the row from the road. The proposals would result in an incongruous addition creating a loss of spaciousness. The remaining gap of approximately 1m between the built form of 2, and 3 [name] would not be discernible, and, given its scale and height the extension would be a prominent feature.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a previous planning approval for a side extension to the property1. Whilst this extended up to the boundary, in contrast to the appeal scheme it maintained the hipped roof form and did not include the additional roof/dormer alterations. It therefore was not of the same scale and massing; the visual of harm of the proposed scheme is derived from the combination of the width of the extension, roof form and rear dormer projection.

A side extension has been added to 4 [name] but again this maintains a hipped roof and is set down from the ridge line in a subservient form. There are examples of gable roofs in the vicinity including in [address], and the appellant has referenced other extension schemes across the Borough. Nonetheless, I have considered this scheme on its own merits having regard to its context and in accordance with the development plan.

I have also had regard to the advice in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance 10. I accept, as noted by the appellant, that the document is somewhat dated. Nevertheless, it does provide guidance on the approach to extending a property and in general is reflective of the National Planning Policy Framework which promotes good design.

Overall, I find that the proposal would be of a scale and form which would be harmful to both the host property and the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to policies SP1, SP6, ENV3a and HOU8 of the Ashford Local Plan, which seek to secure development that is of a high quality of design and does not result in overall harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has referred to the Human Rights Act and the rights of the appellant to enjoy her land. I understand the appellant’s desire to extend her home, nevertheless, personal circumstances will seldom outweigh other planning considerations and I have no reason to conclude that they should do so here.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters I find that the appeal should be dismissed.