Appeal 3277429

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner heading above I have used the description of development given on the decision notice and appeal form as it gives a more accurate description of all the work proposed.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling located in a suburban residential area. Houses in the immediate area, although all slightly different have a traditional design that reflects the era when they were built. Hedges along the front boundaries are found on many of the houses and are an attractive feature in the street scene. The character of [address] varies along its length with other parts having more modern houses and open frontages.

The appeal scheme involves a number of elements. The Council have raised no concerns with the rear extension which would not be visible from the street. I see no reason to disagree with this conclusion.

The proposal would result in significant alterations to the front elevation of the property giving it a contemporary appearance which would be in marked contrast to the traditional character of the immediate vicinity. At roof level, the introduction of two fully glazed gable projections together with the dormer in the side extension would give a complexity to the roof that would be out of keeping with the generally plain roofscapes found in the locality. Moreover, the strong vertical emphasis that would result from the floor to ceiling windows would not respect the horizontal emphasis of the fenestration found on nearby houses.

In addition, the complexity of the proposed front elevation with stone framing as well as the projecting gables would be out of character with the simpler, less cluttered elevations found on the surrounding housing. Furthermore, the various alterations to the front elevation would significantly increase the mass and bulk of the dwelling making it an overly dominant feature in the street scene.

The removal of the boundary hedge and its replacement with a low brick wall with pillars and railings would have a detrimental visual impact on the area. Moreover, in creating a much more open frontage it would increase the visibility of the incongruous design.

Consequently, I consider that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policy L7 of the [name] (adopted January 2012) which seeks to ensure that developments enhance the character of the area by appropriately addressing issues including scale, height, massing, elevational treatment and boundary treatments.

In support of the appeal my attention was drawn to a number of other houses on [address] which have been modernised. I observed that some of these, as well as others that have been altered, include pitched gables and full height windows, as proposed in the appeal scheme. However, the majority of these were not located in the immediate vicinity and were in parts of [address] that had different styles of housing and a different character. Furthermore, some of those I observed had been modernised in ways that were not sympathetic to the prevailing street scene and so do not represent precedents that should be followed.

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