Appeal 3268695

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the appeal was submitted, the revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) came into force on 20 July 2021. I have taken this into consideration in determining this appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling which is situated in an area that contains a variety of properties, including two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings as well as bungalows. Many of the properties have been extended, although the setting back of buildings from the road, as well as the largely open frontages, which are laid out as lawned gardens with some trees, gives the area an open, verdant character.

The proposal would see the erection of a first-floor extension over a single storey element to the side of the main two storey section of the dwelling. The extension would result in a two-storey structure close to the footway. Given the scale and elevated form of the proposal, it would appear as a dominant addition to the property. I was able to see the space in front of the houses on the opposite side of [address] to the appeal site, which are set back on a short spur from the main carriageway. However, despite this generous spacing, the appeal property is sited on the other side of [address] in a prominent corner location, where the proposal would have a cramped appearance. Whilst the trees to the front would soften the appearance of the appeal proposal and offer some screening, the extension would nevertheless be clearly seen from various public vantage points and unacceptably harm the spacious character of the area.

I note the variety of houses in the area and that the proposal has sought to create from the extension and the existing main building, a new, individually designed house. The resultant building would be of a similar size to some other houses in the area and although there is variation in the building line and the positioning of buildings within their plots, the surrounding buildings are nevertheless set back from the highway. As such, whilst the detailed design of the proposal is acceptable, and the appellant would ensure high quality workmanship, the loss of spaciousness in this highly visible corner location would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.

I therefore conclude that the appeal development would have an unacceptable harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would be contrary to Policy DC1 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy DM 1 of the Council’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document, which seek, amongst other matters, for development to have regard to the character of the surrounding area. It would also be contrary to paragraph 130 of the Framework, which requires, amongst other matters, development that is sympathetic to local character.

The Council have raised concerns relating to the loss of residential amenity to occupiers of surrounding properties. However, given the distance to buildings across [address], which are separated from the side of the appeal site by the highway itself and the front garden and parking areas of these neighbouring properties, there would not be any overbearing impact on those occupiers or to those of the neighbouring property at the rear.

I appreciate the appellant is seeking to provide larger accommodation, and the reference to the planning system needing to accommodate demand for more living space. It is however also necessary to consider the effect on the character of the area arising from a development. I have found in the case of this appeal proposal, that it would have a detrimental impact in this regard and this matter, nor the supporting comments from neighbours, would outweigh this harm.

The appellant has made reference to other properties that have been extended elsewhere on the estate. I have been provided with limited details of these extensions and am not aware of their full circumstances. In any case, I consider the examples, some of which show properties extended close to the pavement on corner plots, do little to support the proposal and serve to demonstrate the harm that would be caused by the appeal development.

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