Appeal 3287623

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council notes that no planning history can be found relating to the roof alterations/second floor which has already been built and that “this will be referred to enforcement for investigation.”

The appellant acknowledges “discrepancies” in the drawings submitted with the application. Revised “as built” plans have been submitted. Having regard to this, I consider the main issue in respect of this case to be that set out below.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling which has been extended at roof level. It is located in a prominent position, close to [name] junction with [address]. Long rear gardens to properties along [address], together with a gap alongside and a track to the rear of the appeal property, present an open and spacious environment around its side and front and this adds to the prominence of the dwelling in its surroundings.

The appeal property is located in a residential area, characterised by the presence of two storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings. Dwellings tend to be set only a short distance from the road, behind small gardens and/or parking areas and have longer gardens to the rear.

[name], the similar appearance of dwellings, the regularity of build-lines and spacing between pairs of dwellings, the common use of brick and tile materials and rendering, and the frequent presence of neat hedgerows, all combine to result in a pleasant sense of uniformity and spaciousness. In this respect, I observed during my site visit that, whilst many dwellings have been extended and or altered, such changes tend to appear subservient to host dwellings and in keeping with their surroundings.

The proposed development would add front, side and rear extensions. These would combine to create such a large volume of additional space that, despite a small set-back from the front elevation at first floor level and a small drop down from the ridge height, they would unduly dominate the host property. Rather than appear subservient to the host property, I find that the scale of development proposed would appear unduly disproportionate.

The disproportionate additions would create a dwelling that would appear overwhelmingly dominant in its surroundings. Further, the proposal would appear out of keeping with the identified qualities of the area, most notably, the uniformity of dwellings and the largely subservient and appropriate appearance of neighbouring alterations and extensions. 10.The harmful impact of all of the above would be exacerbated as a result of the prominent location of No [site address] , such that the incongruous and unduly dominant appearance of the development would draw the eye from all directions. 11.Taking everything into account, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Local Plan1 Policies LLP1, LLP19 and LLP25 which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.