Appeal 3292568

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission has been granted for extensions and works to the host dwelling. This appeal relates to a revised design for those works principally including the installation of gable features to the front elevation in place of the approved dormer windows. A condition was imposed on the original permission specifying the approved plans. This appeal seeks to remove that condition and replace it with a condition specifying the plans that reflect the amended design. For ease, I have only referred to the plans which are relevant to this appeal in the banner heading above.

As such, the main issue in this appeal is the effect that the revised design would have on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The host dwelling is a detached bungalow with hipped roof projections to the side and a small gable front porch. Located on a spacious corner plot, it is elevated above the road in a prominent position.

The Planning permission which has been granted includes a forward projecting gable to the front elevation of the host dwelling. The projecting gable provides a focal point on the front elevation with the other elements of this elevation, with lower roofs and smaller dormer features, appearing subservient.

By contrast the appeal proposal consists of three gables on the front elevation. Whilst the central gable is higher and projects further forward than the two either side, they all compete visually with each other. The result is that the prominence of the central gable as a feature is lost. The elevation appears fussy and over complicated. This would detract harmfully from the relative simplicity of the host dwelling.

Moreover, this is at odds with the treatment of the principal elevations of the other properties in [address]. The bungalows in the immediate environ are generally of a simple appearance although some have a single storey projecting gable to the front elevation. The principal elevation of the two storey dwellings elsewhere on [address] generally present as a gable. In essence, the other properties on [address] have a single gable feature to their front elevation in stark contrast to the appeal proposal.

Although not adding much in the way of built form to the building, the addition of two further gables on the front elevation would significantly increase the visual mass of the building. This, together with its prominent positioning on land elevated above the road, would result in a development which competes with, rather than integrating into the surrounding development. As such, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

My attention has been drawn to the design rationale for the proposal and other similar developments in the locality. The appellant is seeking to provide a sustainable and energy efficient home through a contemporary re-face of the existing dwelling. I accept that the use of contemporary materials and detailing could help to raise the standard of design more generally in the area as set out in paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, paragraphs 130 and 134 of the Framework are clear that innovation and high levels of sustainability should not be at the expense of the surrounding built environment and its character.

I have taken into account the Torbay Council Urban Design Guide adopted Supplementary Planning Document dated May 2007, insofar as it relates to the appeal, but nothing I have seen would lead me to conclude differently in respect of the harm I have found to the character and appearance of both the host dwelling and the area.

I conclude that the proposal is contrary to Policies DE1 and DE5 of the Torbay Local Plan 2012-2030 and TH8 of the Torquay Neighbourhood Plan to 2030 made June 2019 insofar as they permit extensions to dwellings provided they acknowledge local character, the surrounding built environment, integrate with the existing street scene and do not dominate or have other adverse effects on the character and appearance of the original property.

There is nothing before me to indicate that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, on parking and local highway conditions or in respect of biodiversity. I have no reason to doubt that it would provide good quality living conditions for occupants of the appeal property. However, these considerations are effectively neutral rather than weighing in favour of allowing the appeal.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no other matters which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.