Appeal 3279219

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.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is occupied by a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with further habitable accommodation in the roof space. To the front of the dwelling is a detached single garage along with a driveway and a private parking area. The surrounding area is residential in nature and, whilst the properties on the estate vary in size and design, they all follow a similar modern and simple style which has a positive impact on the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed single storey front extension would be located between the main dwelling and the detached garage. Therefore, whilst it is somewhat concealed by the existing built form and set back from the roadside, it would still be a visible addition within the streetscene. The proposal is relatively modest in scale with materials matching that of the host dwelling. However, its location on the front of the dwelling and its visibility from the public realm would make it a prominent addition which would appear incompatible with the current minimalistic styling of the immediate area.

The pair of semi-detached properties, of which the appeal property is part of, are currently symmetrical in appearance. The proposed extension would unbalance this symmetry and appear as an incongruous and cluttered addition to the front elevation, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the pair of dwellings and the surrounding area.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would therefore be contrary to Policies CP2, CP7 and DBE10 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan (2006). These policies collectively seek to safeguard or enhance the setting and character of the urban environment with high quality design that complements the streetscene. It would also be contrary to the general design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, the proposal would be contrary to Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan [name] (2017) which seek to ensure development proposals relate positively to their context with extensions to residential buildings being required to respect the form and setting of the original buildings.

I note the other properties within [address], which have undergone various extensions, that have been highlighted by the appellant, including No.3, 12, 31 and 35. Whilst all these extensions have changed the appearance of the host property in a way which the appellant considers to be prominent, they are all vastly different to the appeal proposal in that they do not include an extension to the front elevation of the dwelling. Therefore, these other developments do not set a precedent for the proposal before me.

The Council and the appellant have both concluded that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and that no objections have been received from third parties, including the Town Council. However, this lack of harm does not amount to a positive benefit, but a neutral factor only in my consideration of this case.

The appellant’s claims relating to the conduct of the Council, including the re-use of a pre-planning application response in the delegated officer report and the lack of a site visit, are noted. However, this does not alter the planning merits of the case and the conclusions which I have reached.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, and 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.