Appeal 3277199

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the street scene.

The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling in a residential estate of similar property types.

Policies DM5(e) and DM12(d) of the [name] and Policies Development Plan Document Review (2017) (the CSP) require this type of development, respectively, to protect and enhance the special character and distinctiveness of Ipswich; and to not have an adverse visual impact within the immediate street scene.

The site is within the Whitton sub area of the [address], Whitehouse and Whitton Urban Character Area. The Characterisation Study Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for this area says that proposals for extensions and porches should respect the general symmetrical approach to design through the semi-detached and terraced layout of the estate and avoid disrupting the established layout and proportions of houses in this area.

Dwellings within the street scene of which No 33 is a part demonstrate a good degree of uniformity of character and appearance, with little change to the original design or layout. The existing wooden structure to the side of the appeal property is one of a small number of changes, which also include examples of modest infill porches to the front. The majority of pairs of semi-detached dwellings have open areas to the side providing access to the rear gardens.

I acknowledge that the proposed extension seeks to respond to the angled side boundary. However, the extensive gap between Nos 31 and 33 resulting from their relative layout means that the extension’s side profile would be readily visible from the public realm. From these views the flat roof to the rear and pitched roof form to the front would sit uncomfortably together, contrasting unfavourably with the simpler pitched roof forms of the appeal property and neighbouring dwellings. Moreover, seen from the front the extension would unbalance the pair of semi-detached dwellings by introducing a more permanent and substantive built form of greater height and prominence than the existing wooden structure to the side of No 33.

While the extension would employ matching materials and fenestration and would retain the openness at first floor level, it would also result in a permanent form of development in a position which is uncharacteristic of the highly uniform estate design and layout. As such, it would be particularly prominent in the street scene due to its uncharacteristic and incongruous appearance, contrary to the SDP guidance. I note that the appellants question the distinctiveness of the Whitton estate in comparison to other public housing estates. However, this does not alter the guidance in the SPD or my findings with regard to the effects of the extension on the street scene.

I have had full regard to the appellants’ contention that a side extension could be built as permitted development and that this represents a ‘fallback’ to the appeal proposal. I have no basis to doubt that the appellants may choose to exercise these rights in the event of the appeal’s failure. However, the pitched roof form projecting forward of the existing front elevation makes the extension particularly prominent in the circumstances described. As such, I give limited weight to the fallback given that the additional development which forms part of the appeal proposal results in material harm, as described. 10.Accordingly, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street scene. Consequently, it is contrary to Policies DM5(e) and DM12(d) of the CSP, as described above.