Appeal 3269412

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The street has a mix of bungalows and two-storey detached properties, which are arranged in distinct groups. The appeal property is in the middle of a group of seven bungalows and is prominently sited at the junction of [address] with [address], where it is in full view of those travelling up [address].

Although some of the bungalows have accommodation at first floor level such accommodation is largely contained within the roofspace, and the properties have maintained their single storey appearance. Overall, the bungalows generally have a cohesive appearance and rhythm which makes a significant contribution to the character of the area.

The proposal would see the bungalow extended upwards to create a first floor. Both the ridge and eaves levels would be significantly increased, and together with the proposed half-hip roof form the dwelling would have the appearance of a two-storey dwelling when viewed from the front. As such the resulting building would not reflect the form and massing of its neighbours. Consequently, the extension would be discordant with the group of bungalows and the wider street scene and would detract from its character and appearance.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the size and scale of other upward extensions which have been undertaken to bungalows within the street, and which it is contended are comparable schemes to the appeal proposal.

The alterations at No [address] have retained the appearance of a bungalow, and furthermore the property has two-storey dwellings on all sides. Its context is not directly comparable to the appeal property. Nos 29 and [address], at one end of the group of bungalows that includes the appeal property, have a higher ridge height than the other bungalows in the group but they retain the appearance of bungalows. The adjacent property at No 27 is a two-storey dwelling, and therefore the increased ridge height at Nos 29 and 31 acts as a transition between the bungalows and two-storey dwellings.

The previous extensions and alterations at Nos 33, 37 and [address] clearly differ from the appeal proposal before me as they do not include an increase in the ridge height. As such they are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme. In any case, I have considered this appeal on its own merits.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area in conflict with Policies 9 and 20 of the of the Development Plan Document – [name] and Development Management Policies (2011), which both seek to ensure that development is of a high quality design that does not have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Having had regard to all matters raised, I find that there are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and, on that basis, I agree with the recommendation and shall dismiss the appeal.