Appeal 3267245

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the appeal was lodged a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2021 (‘the Framework, 2021’) has been released, the main parties have been consulted on this and I have taken this into account where relevant to my

The main issue is the effect of the extension on the character and appearance of the area and the Malvern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Development in the vicinity of the appeal site is characterised by a mix of detached, semi-detached, and terraced properties set within plots on steeply sloping sites. The surrounding properties are of differing architectural styles and materials, which is also illustrated by the appellant’s photographs evidence. Consequently, the development in the area does not have a uniform character or appearance but is generally defined by the distinctiveness and quality of individual or groups of buildings.

In particular, the appeal property is a semi-detached Victorian dwelling. This and the similar adjoining property are designed to appear as a single building with matching pitched roofs and a central gable feature at roof level. These properties are finished in a distinct orange brick with a contrasting finish to the upper tier. The design also incorporates buff brick detailing and headers over some windows. The windows along the front elevations of these properties are mainly sash types with feature bay windows at ground floor level. Due to their distinct appearance these properties make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

Being located at the top of [name], the appeal property is particularly prominent in views from along parts of [address]. The site also lies within the [name].

The proposal seeks to retain an existing single storey structure. Notwithstanding that this has replaced a detached timber shed of poor quality and does not incorporate a physical link to the appeal property, it is attached to it and clearly reads as a side extension.

Whilst this extension is of an appropriate and subordinate scale relative to the appeal property and logically sited, its flat roof form is not consistent with the pitched roof of the host property. Furthermore, the use of horizontal timber cladding appears significantly at odds with its distinct brick exterior. Also, the window along the front of the extension is not in keeping with the size and form of windows within the appeal property and lacks the detailing associated with these.

The appellant asserts that the extension is intended to create a ‘design break’. However, cumulatively because of its form, timber construction and design, it appears as an incongruous addition to the host dwelling and detracts from its appearance and therefore adversely impacts on the street scene. This impact is exacerbated by the prominent position of the host property and extension.

Despite being located within the [name], the development is a modest extension to an existing dwelling in a built-up part of the AONB. Therefore, it does not affect the natural beauty or special qualities of the landscape of the [name]. As such, I find no conflict with Policy SWDP 23 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (‘SWDP’) which aims to safeguard and enhance the natural beauty and landscape characteristics of the AONB.

Nevertheless, for the above reasons the extension represents poor design and harms the character and appearance of the area. This is in conflict with Policy SWDP 21 of the SWDP which requires all development to be of high design quality, including in terms of form and materials. I also find conflict with similar design aims of the Framework, 2021.

The appellant has referred to the Malvern Hills AONB Guidance on [name] and [name] Planning Document. In terms of scale and siting the proposal accords with this guidance. However, this guidance also requires that extensions are of a well-considered design and reflect the character and style of the original dwelling, which for the above reasons is not the case here.

I have taken account of the appellant’s personal statement and reasons in support of the proposal and noted that the extension improves the thermal qualities of the appeal property. Nevertheless, these factors and the appellant’s willingness to add glazing bars to the existing window and stain the timber cladding, would not address my overall concerns about the proposal and the harm I have identified.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.