Appeal 3270890

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council states that the submitted plans are inaccurate. Nevertheless, there is sufficient detail on the drawings to clearly illustrate the proposal and to enable a reasonable assessment of the development sought.

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

The appeal property is a mainly 2-storey semi-detached house that lies within a predominantly residential area wherein buildings vary in scale, design and general appearance. Notable features of the appeal dwelling include a long ‘cat slide’ roof and a sizeable flat roof dormer extension at the side.

The proposal is to enlarge No 21 with a first floor extension by elongating the existing side dormer rearwards and by introducing new built form beyond the main rear wall. As these new elements would slightly differ to each other in their height, rear build line and fenestration, the proposal would appear somewhat disjointed when seen from the back garden of No 21.

By extending across almost the full width of the main house and connecting with the existing side dormer, the proposal would result in a first floor with a flat roof covering almost the entire rear and side of the property. As the new rear addition would project well beyond the plane of the ‘cat slide’ roof, it would also visually compete with and thus detract from the original roof form. Due to its considerable scale, unsympathetic design and prominent high-level position, the proposal would overwhelm the rear façade of the main house. The main outcome would be significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building.

The appellant places some reliance on the rear and side extensions carried out at the attached property, which is [address]. From what I saw, No 23 has a part single storey, part 2-storey rear extension with a flat roof at first floor level. The introduction of a substantial new built form, as proposed, would, to some extent, restore some sense of balance in the upper rear façade of this pair. However, the Council states that the rear extension at No 23 does not have planning permission because the scheme, as built, departs from the approved plans. Whether or not that is the case, the rear extension at No 23 serves to illustrate that changes to the upper part of a building can have a very significant impact on the character and appearance of that building and the area to which it belongs. Having viewed No 23 from the rear garden of the appeal dwelling, I consider that it does not justify a discordant form of development, as sought.

The new rear addition would not be evident from public vantage points given its position at the back of the main house. It would nonetheless form part of the characteristics of the area as experienced and appreciated from nearby properties. When viewed from the rear of No 23, for instance, the proposed extension would appear as an uncharacteristically large and bulky addition. In reaching this conclusion, I have had regard to the proposed use of external materials to match the existing building. A good-sized back garden would remain with the new built form in place.

[address] Extensions and [name] (SPD) advises that the overall shape, size and position of extensions should not dominate the existing house and should harmonise with its original appearance. For the reasons given, the proposed development would not adhere to these important principles.

On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policy LP1 of the Local Plan, the Council’s SPD and the Whitton and Heathfield Village Planning Guidance. Together, this policy and guidance aim to ensure that new development achieves a high standard of design quality and contributes to and enhances the local environment and character.

Once complete, the proposal would provide additional living space that would improve the living conditions of the appellant and his family. However, this consideration does not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified.

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