Appeal 3286703

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including the setting of locally listed buildings.

The appeal property forms part of a semi-detached pair. This pair has had some of its symmetry eroded, due to the addition of a dormer and hip-to-gable conversion on the appeal property, however it retains some symmetrical features, such as the outriggers. The appeal site sits within the setting of locally listed buildings, including 2 and [address], which derive their significance from their traditional architectural features. The remaining symmetrical architectural features on the appeal property and its semi-detached neighbour contribute positively to the setting of these locally listed buildings.

The proposal would add an additional storey to the rear outrigger. The eaves of the additional storey would sit above the eaves of the rest of the dwelling and the proposal would therefore not appear subordinate to the original building. Despite the proposal not being visible from some views, it would be visible when moving past the property and would thus harm the appearance of the surrounding area.

The additional storey would also disrupt the remaining symmetry between the semi-detached pair. It would thus not appear in-keeping with the character of the building. This would cause harm to the setting of the locally listed buildings at No.2 and No.8. Any harmful impact from other alterations in the area to the setting of the locally listed buildings does not justify further harm from the proposal.

Overall, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area and the setting of the locally listed buildings. It would thus fail to comply with Policy 15 of the Core Strategy1 which looks to ensure development is sensitive to the local context. It would also not accord with Policies DM30, DM31 and DM37 of the Local Plan2 which together seek development that is an appropriate height, scale, subordinate to the original building and does not harm the setting of locally listed buildings.

Likewise, it would go against the aims of the SPD3, which suggests that additional storeys should be subservient, will only usually be acceptable on flat roofs and are unlikely to be acceptable when the property forms a pair.

The desire to provide improvements to a family home has been taken into consideration. This would be a private benefit and it therefore carries limited weight. It is not considered these improvements would outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area and the setting of the locally listed buildings.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to the Development Plan as a whole, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.