Appeal 3284573

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is a modern ‘L’ shaped bungalow with generously sized gardens to either side accessed from a back lane within an area of older terraced properties. [name] immediately adjacent to the appeal property is a single storey red brick terrace with very small rear yards. Set slightly further from the appeal property, [address] to the north is a two-storey terrace. The appeal site backs onto a school playing field, providing an open aspect to this side. The proposed extension would increase the existing 3 bedroomed bungalow to an 11 bedroomed two storey house with two kitchens and three living rooms. [address] to the north is two-storey the prevailing character of the appeal site is one of single storey residential properties and is read in that context.

The effect of the development, which would increase the height of the property by a single storey and would add approximately 7 metres to the length of the front and rear elevations, would be an incongruous, visually dominant addition not subservient to the host property. The use of render on the first floor would introduce a material not characteristic of the area and would neither mitigate the incongruous appearance of the extension nor overcome the inappropriate scale of the development. Moreover, render would serve to exaggerate the incongruous and commercial appearance of the resulting development, detracting from the predominantly residential appearance of the area.

The proposal would introduce a two-storey gable feature close to the back lane which would appear overly dominant when viewed from the rear of [name] opposite. Existing trees and hedges currently provide some screening of the appeal property from other aspects; however, these would be less effective as a result of the additional storey and the appeal property would become visibly dominant from a number of vantage points in the locality. Therefore, the proposal would be at odds with the prevailing single storey character of this stretch of [site address] .

I acknowledge that some of the dwellings in [address] have loft conversion and these are effectively three storeys. However, the scale of these dwellings remains relatively modest. The sheer scale of the resultant dwelling would be far greater than these two/three storey dwellings. Indeed, it would be more akin to the entirety of the terrace rather than any of the individual dwellings it is composed of.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the proposed extension would be of an incongruously excessive scale and would adversely affect the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy 29 of the County Durham Plan (2020) which specifically states that extensions and alterations to residential properties should be sympathetic to the existing building and the character and appearance of the area in terms of amongst other things, design, scale and materials. It would also conflict with the advice set out in the Council’s Residential Amenity Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2020) which seeks to ensure that house extensions are subservient to the host dwelling and sympathetic to the character and appearance of its surroundings. Furthermore, it would fail to accord with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

I have noted the appellant’s personal circumstances relating to their desire for multi-generational accommodation and the ability to be able to work from home due to the pandemic. I also note that the appellant has stated that eco-friendly components will be used in the construction of the development. However, I have very limited details before me of what construction methods and materials would be used. None of these matters would not outweigh the harm I have found in this case.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and all relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.