Appeal 3285796

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a detached dwelling that has been extensively extended. The rear of the dwelling in particular bears little resemblance to the more traditional style and character of the dwelling as it appears from [address]. Previous additions appear somewhat disjointed and out of keeping with the form and character of what would have originally been a fairly traditional bungalow. The proposed two-storey element of the proposal would be to the rear but would add to the lack of cohesiveness in the appearance of No 103. It would be large, bulky and at odds with the character of the dwelling.

The proposal would also alter the shape of the roof as seen from the road and add an additional dormer window. The Council does not seem to have raised any particular objection to these elements of the proposal but they do form part of the overall alterations proposed and so contribute to the total lack of respect to the style, proportions and appearance of the dwelling and add to the confused and disjointed appearance of the house.

Local Plan (2019)1 Policy D1 requires all new development to be of a high quality of design that responds to local character. Local Plan (2003)2 Policy G5 sets out design requirements for new development and Policy H8 sets out 1 Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2015 – 2034, Adopted 25 April 2019. 2 Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003, [name] 2003. criteria for extensions to dwellings in urban areas. The Council’s SPD3 also sets out design principles which seek to ensure that house extensions and alterations are appropriate to the character and appearance of the existing property and the existing street scene around the property. The National Planning Policy Framework4 also cites the importance of good design.

[name] do not consider that the previous extensions have been particularly sympathetic to the original design of No 103, the proposal would do little to bring a cohesiveness back to the style of this property. The proposed alterations and extensions would contribute to the confused and disproportionate additions and alterations and conflict with the objectives of the polices referred to above.

I appreciate that the main impact of the proposal is to the rear of the property but the character of No 103 contributes to the overall character and appearance of the area and the effect of the proposal would fail to respect or make a positive contribution to the existing property which in turn impacts on the area generally. I note that the relatively new development to the east of the appeal site introduces dwellings of a different style and scale than those in the area generally but this does not justify the proposed alterations and extensions to this property. I have considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion.

I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, it would conflict with the policies referred to above and therefore the appeal fails.