Appeal 3268406

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and whether there is sufficient information to demonstrate that its carbon and energy impact would be minimised.

The appeal bungalow stands within an area of mixed character at the corner of [address] and [address]. The bungalow is at the end of a row of two-storey houses and to the west and south are large residential homes. Within this context there is no dispute that alterations to the bungalow could be acceptable, subject to details.

The two-storey extension would be constructed on cleared land to the side of the bungalow which formerly contained outbuildings. It would be taller than the bungalow in order to incorporate accommodation in the roof. When considered together with the roof planes of the existing bungalow, the overall design would result in a somewhat confused and overly complicated roof form due to the number and variety of roof pitches. This would harm the appearance of the bungalow and would be at odds with the prevailing cohesive character of buildings in the surrounding area.

The proposal would significantly increase the bulk of the dwelling and the extension would appear dominant and discordant with the design and character of the existing bungalow. This would conflict with the Council’s Supplementary Technical Document 5, which is part of the [name] 2016 (STD), in respect of its guidance for householder extensions. Specifically, it requires extensions to be subordinate to the principal dwelling. Furthermore, the awkward design of the rear elevation of the resulting dwelling would be easily visible from [address] which rises from [address], thereby further highlighting its poor-quality design.

References to the height and scale of the former timber barn are noted. However, when compared to the proposed extension, the barn was a separate outbuilding with an entirely different relationship to the bungalow, design and character. This argument is unconvincing.

I conclude that the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character of the existing bungalow and its incongruous appearance would detract from the street scene and the wider visual amenities of the locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies DES2 and H20 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (SOLP) which, in summary and of relevance to this appeal, require extensions to dwellings to be of high-quality design. I have already identified above that there is also conflict with the STD.

Insufficient information is provided to demonstrate how the development would minimise any carbon and energy impacts resulting from its design and construction. The requirement of Policy DES8 of the SOLP is not therefore satisfied. Nonetheless, as the Council indicates in the officer report, the deficiency could be addressed by the submission of an energy statement. This could have been required by condition, had the proposal been otherwise acceptable.

For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the existing bungalow and the surrounding area. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.