Appeal 3294149

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, street scene and surrounding area.

[address] is a cul-de-sac made up of semi-detached houses lining either side of the road and some detached properties positioned at the closed end. There are slight variations in the building line, but overall, it is relatively consistent. It is punctuated a few times by modest ground floor front extensions, such as porches and garages.

Most of the houses have been extended, some significantly, which has resulted in the ones forming the semi-detached pairs, no longer being completely symmetrical with each other. Despite this, the houses are generally similar in scale and form, the detached ones being a similar scale to the pairs. First floor extensions are either stepped back from or flush with the building line of the host dwellings, making them subservient additions. Together, the consistent scale, form and building line create a degree of uniformity in the street scene.

The proposal would create a first floor above existing ground floor extensions, which include a modest front extension currently consisting of a porch and garage. Whether or not the Council’s Residential Extensions Design Guide has been applied inconsistently in the past, including within [address], it provides guidance on the detail of extensions, including a desire for subservience.

Although the addition proposed to the front of the house is only a small part of the overall proposal, together with the existing porch and garage, it would be read as one fairly large extension that projects forward of the building line. The resulting front extension would be of a scale that would be dominant in character and not subservient to the existing house. This would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The proposal would include design features that, in some way, would mirror the attached neighbour and thus rebalance the pair. However, the forward projection of the proposal with additional hipped roof section at first floor would be uncharacteristic of the area generally.

The neighbouring pair of houses, Nos 10 and 12, are stepped slightly forward of the appeal property, meaning the proposed first-floor front addition would be generally in line with their first-floor front elevation. This would reduce the dominance of the extension when viewed as part of the street scene. However, it would still be out of character with other houses in the area, where the first-floor additions are less prominent and appear subordinate to the host dwellings. Therefore, the proposal would harm the character of the street scene and surrounding area.

Accordingly, I find the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, street scene and surrounding area. As such, it would be in conflict with the aims of policy BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan that seeks to protect the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

With regard to the above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. It has not been demonstrated that there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise in accordance with it.