Appeal 3281906

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a detached two-storey house in a residential area on the outskirts of [site address] . Dwellings in the surrounds vary in scale, design and detailing and add visual interest to the vicinity.

I saw at my site visit a number of other properties in the locality with attic conversions at second floor level. I am therefore satisfied that such accommodation need not be unacceptable in principle.

At the front the appeal scheme proposes, amongst other things, a new central gable with floor to ceiling window below. To my mind, the gable would interrupt the uniformity of the eaves of the front elevation, introducing a substantial and intrusive feature that would project upwards into the roofslope. The large central window at first floor level would be excessive in size, and disrupt the fenestration with other openings. Collectively these elements would be discordant and harmful to the character and appearance of the property.

Being at the rear, I am aware that the proposed extensions would have limited impact on the public domain. Nevertheless, the overall scale of the projecting element at second floor level would result in an extensive new roof form with a lower eaves and a ridgeline at the same level as the main house, and therefore lack any sense of subservience. Cumulatively the height, mass and bulk of the scheme at second floor level would appear dominant and anomalous when viewed from adjacent garden areas. _________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________

I am aware that the character of the neighbourhood is mixed in nature, that the site is not located in a conservation area and there are no listed buildings nearby. I am satisfied that the metal canopy to the front elevation reflects a more modern approach, and in my view this feature would integrate with the use of other contemporary materials. The Council does not appear to object to the small en-suite addition to the rear at first floor level, and I have no reason to disagree. Nonetheless, the development continues to be unacceptable for the reasons I have outlined above.

I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area. It would fail to comply with Policies KP1, KP2 and CP4 of the [site address] [name] 2007, Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Development Management Document July 2015 and the Design and [name] 2009. Taken in the round, these seek to ensure that developments respect the character and scale of the site and existing neighbourhood and maintain and enhances the character of residential areas. The proposal would also be inconsistent with the Framework which states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.