Appeal 3274412

The appeal is dismissed.

No concerns are raised by the Council in respect of the single storey rear extension. I agree. Thus, the main issue is the effect of the proposed side extension on the character and appearance of the area.

The dwelling is a semi-detached two storey property on a residential street characterised by detached and semi-detached dwellings of a similar type and style. Properties are typically linked by their ground floor garages and have a tight knit but staggered layout. This creates regular gaps between neighbouring dwellings either above the garage or with a narrower gap to the side.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and [name] (SPD) says, in respect of side extensions, that building in gaps between dwellings has the potential to create a ‘terracing effect’ creating a cramped appearance and giving the impression of a continuous frontage in areas where such development would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the original dwelling and surrounding properties.

The proposed side extension would not be set in from the side boundary with [address]. Therefore, whilst the front elevation would be set back and the roof lower than the host dwelling, the proposal would not meet all the conditions set out in the SPD for a side extension to have a subordinate appearance. The complementary design of the side extension and the proposed use of materials do not alter this or the loss of the gap above the garage.

By extending up to the side boundary with No 16, the proposal has the potential to create a terracing effect. Whilst there is no indication that no 16 benefits from planning permission to extend or may wish to, the effect of an extension to the appeal property at No 16 in an identical or similar manner would be to form a terrace. This would harm the cohesive character of properties in the road which have regular gaps between built form.

A similar extension is at [address] to the rear of the appeal property. I do not know how this extension came to be, whether it benefits from planning permission or what the circumstances were that led to a permission being granted if it was. There are also subtle differences between [address] and [address]. Numerous detached properties on [address] have a similar built form to the side which seem to be part of the original design. Hence, I do not consider No 22 justifies the harmful effect of the appeal scheme.

The scale of the proposal may reflect the occupiers needs and enhance their living conditions through additional living accommodation. There would also be no change to the parking and access arrangements.

However, neither alters or outweighs my conclusion that the proposed side extension would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area which would conflict with Policy ENV6 of the Local Plan ([name]) [name]), Policies DM3 and DM 21 of the Local Plan ([name]) [name] and [name] and the SPD which jointly seek, among other things, extensions and alterations to existing dwellings to be high quality design that contributes positively to the character of the area, is subordinate to the original dwelling and is sympathetic to the characteristics of the development site and its relationship with its surroundings.

Notwithstanding my finding about the single storey rear extension, as this would not be physically separate from the side extension the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that I should take a different decision other than in accordance with this.

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