Appeal 3286933

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against City of York Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

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

The proposal is for a single storey duo-pitched roof extension to the rear of No [site address] , a Victorian style end terrace house on the corner of [address]. The extension would link the house to the detached garage which fronts onto [address] at the end of the plot. It would also extend out a metre or so towards the side property boundary which forms the back edge of the footway along [address] and is currently marked by a low wall.

[address]/[address] area comprises a grid pattern of Victorian style terraced housing with standard plot widths, straight building lines, uniform brickwork and consistent detailing. Ground floor bay windows are also a particular characteristic of the neighbourhood.

No 46 has a ground floor bay window on its front elevation in common with all the other houses on [address] but there is also a bay window on the side elevation facing [address]. The proposal would replace this feature with a long single storey brickwork projection relieved by three high level windows and five conservation style rooflights.

[name] 46 is unusual in having a bay window to the side, it forms an attractive and distinctive feature on [address] and reflects the others along that road. The appellant states that this is not an original feature of the property, but no evidence is submitted to support this assertion and its brickwork and detailing appear very similar to that on the front elevation. In any event, the loss of the bay window feature would unduly detract from the consistent design characteristics of the area.

The proposal would also extend the property towards [address] breaching the uniform building line which runs all the way from [address] to [address]. To the south the properties are set back behind short front gardens, to the north No [address] and No [address] directly front onto the footway which explains the absence of bay windows. Whilst the proposal would result in a fairly modest forward projection, given the uniformity of layout in the area this would have an incongruous appearance when seen from either direction along the road.

For these reasons the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the street scene in conflict with Policies D1 and D11 of the City of York Local Plan Publication Draft 2018, Policies GP1 and H7 of the Development Control Local Plan 2005 and the [name] and [name] 2012. These resist proposals that cause damage to the character and quality of an area, require a positive response to the architectural context, respect for the local environment and a design sympathetic to the main dwelling and the locality.

Drawing 21.3074-05 shows the extension projecting further from the front of the garage than the flank wall of the house, leading to a progressively lower eaves height not shown on the proposed elevation drawing 21.3074-06. This irregularity would be a further incongruous feature of the scheme.

The proposal would provide improved open plan living accommodation suitable for a wheelchair user and a much-needed home office. However, these material considerations would not outweigh the adverse effect on the character and appearance of the street scene and the associated conflict with the emerging development plan.

Having regard to the above the appeal should be dismissed.