Appeal 3289859

The appeal is dismissed.

I note that the applicant’s surname is spelt differently between the application form (Ahmed) and the appeal form (Ahmad). For clarification I have taken the spelling as it appears on the application form.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding locality.

The appeal site lies on the corner of [address] and Woodland View and is a semi-detached dwelling which has a functional appearance with two storeys, brown brick construction and pitched concrete tiled roof. The appeal site is part of what appears to be a speculative development with surrounding streets maintaining similar designs with consistent setbacks from front and side boundaries with gardens to the rear. Visual gaps are located between buildings which together with larger rear gardens, street trees and vegetated setbacks gives an open, leafy and spacious feel in and around the dwellings. Along with the similar designs, massing and materials of the dwellings, these elements contribute positively to the local character and distinctiveness of the locality.

The proposed extension would extend a two storey element to the side boundary with Woodland View which would project forward of the consistent setback of dwellings along Woodland View and cause a loss of the important spaces in and around the dwellings which contribute to their character and appearance. The extension itself would be very deep and wide and have an awkward juxtaposition between the existing and proposed components with the new extension having a very shallow roof pitch that would appear out of Appeal Decision: APP/Y0435/D/21/3289859 keeping with the design of the existing dwelling and surrounding dwellings within the street scene.

Taking the above into account, and in conclusion of this matter, the proposed design of the extension would be at odds when considering the surrounding character and local distinctiveness of the area, particularly with regards to the lack of space in and around the dwelling, the proximity to property boundaries and awkward roof form which does not respond to the local character and distinctiveness of the area.

Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to the [site address] MK Plan 2019 Policies, D1, D2 and D3 which are all design-led policies which set a criterion to ensure development is of high quality, creates a positive character and are appropriate to their context.

The applicant in their Statement of Case (SoC) mentions that the proposed extension would be constructed for their son who has severe learning difficulties and would allow him to live independently. [name] have no further evidence or justification from the applicant with regards to this consideration, I will consider these personal circumstances as a material consideration. Having reviewed these personal circumstances, I feel that there may be other ways of accommodating the applicant’s needs which may be more compliant with the policies of the development plan. There are consequently no material considerations that warrant a decision other than in accordance with the

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.