Appeal 3288684

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The section of [site address] where the appeal site is located is predominantly characterised by chalet bungalows of varying design. No [site address] is a chalet bungalow situated within a corner plot. The front elevation of No [site address] includes distinctive gable and dormer window features which incorporate matching decorative fascia boards. The first-floor windows within these features are also aligned with one another and form part of an overall cohesive design. This dwelling and others on the road are generally set well back from front boundaries and are served by front gardens and driveways. Where dwellings have front projections, these are more often limited in depth. These factors give a pleasant sense of order and a general spaciousness to the street scene.

The Wycombe District Council Householder Planning and Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2020) (the SPD) states amongst other things that front extensions will be highly visible in the street scene, so particular care should be taken to ensure that they do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling, or the general character of the street. Paragraph 12.1 of the SPD also states that all garages should be set behind the front building line of the dwelling to avoid obscuring views of the property or intruding into the wider street scene.

Due to its substantial projection forward of the principal elevation of the dwelling, the front garage would be at odds with the prevailing layout of buildings in the street. It would appear particularly conspicuous as a result of the site’s prominent corner location which would facilitate views of the development both from [site address] and [address]. In addition, in views towards the front of the property, the pitched roof of the garage would interrupt the front profile of the existing dormer window. As a result of these factors, the development would disrupt the cohesive design of the dwelling and would be an incongruous addition to the street scene.

My attention has been drawn to the scale and layout of a dwelling adjacent to the more northern junction of [site address] with [address] as well as a selection of properties on [site address] which have with front extensions or garages. I am not aware of the planning history of these particular examples or whether they were considered prior to the adoption of the SPD or current development plan policies. In any case, I have considered the appeal proposal on its individual merits. For the reasons given, I am not persuaded that the proposal would positively respond to the appearance of the host dwelling or the predominant layout of buildings on [site address] .

I conclude, the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, the proposal would conflict with the high quality design, character and context requirements of Policies DM35 (Placemaking and [name]), DM36 (Extensions and Alterations to [name]) and Policy CP9 (Sense of Place) of the Wycombe District Council Local Plan (2019). For the same reasons the proposal would also conflict with the SPD.

The development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.