Appeal 3293751

The appeal is dismissed.

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

[site address] [site address] is a semi-detached house on a corner plot within a suburban residential area, fronting onto [site address] whereas the other half of the pair fonts [address]. The proposal is to build a part single storey/part 2 storey extension across much of the [site address] frontage, wrapping around to also form a 2 storey extension to the side farthest away from [address].

The Council’s Householder Planning and Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) advises 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.

The existing house is of a relatively simple rectangular form, with 2 end gables. An important aspect of its design is that it has habitable room windows facing both [site address] and [address], creating interest and aiding in surveillance of both streets. The proposal would substantially complicate the structure. The form of the 2 storey element including its hipped roof and forward projection would make it look slightly detached from the rest of the building. The single storey element would block out much of the existing front wall. The extension, though fairly large in scale, would only have a door and 2 small ground floor windows facing [site address] . This would detract from the existing front elevation, giving the building a much more defensive, closed off appearance.

The proposal would therefore be a somewhat disjointed and awkward design that would fail to complement the existing building and street scene. I note that some other 2 storey front extensions have been built in the local area. Only one of these, at 12 The Warren, seems at all similar to this proposal. Even in that case, however, the extensions seem to be better integrated into the form of the building and maintain a much better frontage to The Warren. None of these other extensions alter the character of the area in such a way as to make the appeal proposal fit in well.

I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the house and the local area. It therefore conflicts with the aims of Policies CP9, DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan and the SPD, to ensure that new development is of high quality design and that extensions respect the character and appearance of the existing property.

I have also taken account of the other points raised by the appellant. In particular I recognise the appellant’s reasonable wish to improve the standard of accommodation at No [site address] , but this is insufficient to override my concerns about the design matters raised in connection with the key issue.

I have furthermore taken into account the concerns raised by a neighbour. The proposed side extension would be close to a dining room window at [address], but its height would only step up further away from that house, so that the extension would not have a significant effect on No 72’s light to or outlook. There may be a minor but important discrepancy in the plans, as pointed out by a neighbour, but this could likely have been resolved if the proposal was otherwise acceptable.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.