Appeal 3281104

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area.

The appeal property is a 2-storey detached house with single storey side and rear additions within a modern estate style residential area, wherein dwellings are similar in age and style although differ in size, detailed design and general appearance. No 21 occupies a prominent corner plot at the junction of The Greenway and [address] along which buildings are generally set back from the road and mostly behind open front gardens and short driveways.

The Greenway has a curved alignment as it passes the site and then straightens, but there is some uniformity to the front building line of the nearest properties to the site that address this road and in their relationship to the highway. The open plan frontages of these properties, including No 21, also adds to the spacious context in which the appeal property is viewed. While not every plot within the wider estate is arranged in the same way as the site, dwellings are sited to positively respond to the sense of space within the streetscape.

The proposed front extension has been designed to reflect the style of the host building but it would be a sizeable addition and sited noticeably forward of the existing front wall and to the side of the main 2-storey house. When seen from the road, the completed dwelling would appear larger and far more substantial in built form than the existing building. With the finished dwelling closer to the footway along The Greenway than its existing counterpart and the loss of some front garden, the new front façade would gain prominence in the street scene.

In combination, these factors would alter the balance of space around the completed house to the extent that it would appear overly large for the plot with the sense of space around the adjacent junction unduly eroded. By projecting noticeably forward of the front build line to the nearest The Greenway properties, the new front extension would also disrupt the established pattern to existing development. The overall effect would be significantly harmful to the relationship between buildings and adjoining spaces, and thus the character and appearance of the local area.

The Council’s Householder Planning and Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that a front extension to a detached property should respect the existing pattern of development. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) also notes that development should add to the overall quality of the area and be sympathetic to local character. For the reasons given, the proposal would not do so.

I saw that some properties in the surrounding area to the site had been externally altered and extended including those to which the appellant has referred and provided photographs. None of the examples cited or those that I saw occupied a prominent corner plot as in this case or included a front extension that was the same or very similar to the proposal. While there is some variety to existing development in the local area, with many properties that include front projections, these cases are not directly comparable with the appeal scheme. Consequently, I am unable to attach more than limited weight to them in support of the appeal.

On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it is contrary to Policies DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan. These policies aim to ensure that new development respects the character and appearance of the surrounding area and demonstrates high quality design. It is also at odds with the guidance of the SPD and the policies of the Framework for the reasons given.

I note that the Council appears to raise no objection to the remainder of the proposal, which includes a new building to replace the existing detached garage, a new boundary fence and external alterations to the main house. Chepping Wycombe Parish Council does, however, raise some additional concerns in this regard.

Once complete, the proposed extension would provide additional living space that would improve the living conditions of future occupiers. The living conditions of others would not be materially reduced. However, these considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified.

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