Appeal 3283056

The appeal is dismissed.

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

[site address] is in an area formed of groups of uniform rows of largely symmetrical semidetached houses set beyond open plan gardens with fairly generous spaces between buildings. No 66 is one of a group with dormers at first floor level set in steeply pitched roofs with sharp ridge lines, which cut assured side profiles against the sky. Whilst many have garages to their sides (or could do), they are low profile and do not prejudice the harmonious, spacious suburban scene that the design and pattern of the buildings has created.

The side extension would be subservient to No 66 given its width, set back position and height below the ridge. However, the subservience in height would be achieved with a contrived roof form, slackening at its apex to become almost flat, inconsistent to the acute profile of the flank wall from which it would extend. The set back would be modest to the extent that the extension would be assertive. Its fenestration would disturb the symmetry of the first floor of the building and would be incongruous, with the dormer sill meeting high eaves above an odd expanse of wall between it and the garage opening.

The space between No 66 and its neighbour No 64 to the south is relatively wide, and there is a fair drop in height between the two dwellings. Nonetheless, the around 1m gap between the first floor of the extension and the common boundary would be appreciably closer than other such relationships around the site. Moreover, the side extension would appear to step down towards No 64, bridging the visual break between them and leading to a terracing effect.

I appreciate that the appellant has sought to conform to elements of the [name] to Extension Design Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2008) (the SPD). However, I have found that the scheme would conflict with Principle 2 of the SPD, insofar as it would not respect the pattern of buildings in the street and the spaces between them, a matter that would not be resolved by any particular choice of finish materials.

The extensions permitted within the gap between nearby 39 and [address] are together at odds with the spacious disposition of houses here and are not therefore a positive design precedent. Permission for the extension at No 41 was granted in a materially different policy context, prior to the adoption of the [name] (CS) and the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in 2012. The subsequent permission at No 39 was likely within a situation where the space between the houses had already been compromised. As such, these decisions are of little influence in my assessment.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with the design aims of Policy CP17 of the CS, saved Policy DG1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995- 2011 (adopted 2005) and the Framework.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan read as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this conflict. As such, and taking all other matters raised into account, I shall dismiss the appeal.