Appeal 3279082

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.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 20 July 2021. [name] have had regard to the revised Framework as a material consideration, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I have therefore not sought further submissions on the revised Framework, and I am satisfied that no party would be disadvantaged as a result.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the [address] street scene.

The appeal property is located at the end of a short terrace of 1970’s properties. Each property in the terrace has a small front garden and path leading to an open porch and front door. Their similar features, including their design, materials and clearly defined front building line, provide a strong sense of rhythm and uniformity to the appearance of the terrace. The open plan layout, with low or open front boundaries results in the front of the terraced row being clearly open to view when approaching along [address] in either direction.

Although a fairly modest extension is proposed, it would significantly alter the appearance of the front of the appeal property, disrupting the uniformity of the terrace as a whole. All the properties in the terrace have the same design with an open porch and window at ground floor. The change to the appeal property’s front elevation including the forward projection of the lean-to and the change to the building line would result in the appeal property appearing out of keeping with the rest of the terrace, which would be harmful to its uniform character and appearance.

I saw on my site visit that there are a variety of dwelling types and designs in the vicinity of the appeal property, including dwellings with front alterations. However, the appeal property is part of a small terrace with a distinctly uniform appearance. Due to the open plan layout of the estate, the proposed extension would be unduly prominent and noticeable in the street scene when approaching along [address] in either direction. The properties that the appellants refer to are not part of the immediate setting of the appeal property and these examples have therefore had little bearing on my decision.

[name] note the appellants’ points that the roof of the extension has been designed to match the shallow pitch of the main dwelling, that the extension respects the 45 degree line to the neighbouring property and that matching materials are proposed, these features would not alleviate the harm that would occur as a result of the front addition.

I therefore conclude, for the above reasons, that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the [address] street scene and is contrary to Policy CS21 of the [name] (October 2021) which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure developments make a positive contribution to the character of the area. Policy CS21 also specifically seeks to ensure development has regard to the characteristics of adjoining buildings. The proposed development would also be contrary to the Woking Design Supplementary Planning Document (2015) which advises that front extensions will be resisted where there is a well established building line to protect the character and appearance of the street scene. There would also be conflict with the Framework in so far as it requires that development should add to the overall quality of an area and should be sympathetic to local character.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, 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 the appeal is dismissed.