Appeal 3295003

The appeal is dismissed.

A previous application for an extension1 was refused in 2020. The reason for the refusal was that the proposal would result in disproportionate additions above the original size of the house.

The appellant provides information showing that there was an error made in the uploading of documents onto the Council’s website. The Council accepts this and confirms that the documents were not shown on the Council’s website until after the application was determined. This and related matters are considered in the costs application decision referred to above.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a brick-built two storey detached dwelling with a small single storey extension to the rear located in the countryside. There are outbuildings some distance away from the host dwelling and the whole is set within grounds that originally comprised a small-holding. 1 Reference: Application Number 20/1167M.

The surrounding area is notably rural. The appeal property is surrounded by expansive fields to the north, south, east and west. [site address] in this location comprises an unlit country road without pavements.

There are grass verges, hedgerows and occasional trees alongside [site address] and plentiful views to the open countryside beyond. The appeal property, with its distinctive, steeply-pitched slate roof and white rendering is widely visible from [site address] to the front, as well as from the rear, where fields fall away and then rise again towards settlements in the distance.

The dwelling appears as a distinctive, period road-side country cottage, the modest overall dimensions of which do not detract from its green, open and spacious surroundings. 10.By way of contrast, the proposed double storey extension would extend the dwelling’s footprint and would add significant volume at second floor level. The proposed new roof would not be set down but would reach the same height as the existing roof. The overall scale of the proposal is such that it would appear to almost double the size of the original property and in so doing, it would subsume its modest and distinctive characteristics. 11.As a result of the above, the proposal would not appear subservient to the host property but would, I find, rather overwhelm and dominate it. 12.The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated as a result of the extended dwelling drawing attention to itself as a large and prominent built feature, widely visible in its surroundings. The proposed development would fail to nestle into its rural surroundings and would, I find, appear as a large and visually intrusive house. I find that this would detract from the area’s green, open and spacious attributes. 13.[name] note the intent to remove outbuildings as part of the proposal, these comprise modest ancillary buildings typically found close to dwellings in the countryside and neither their demolition nor the fact that there used to be other outbuildings on the appeal site would mitigate, in any significant way, the harm identified above. 14.Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Local Plan Strategy2 Policies PG6, SE1 and SD2; and to Saved Local Plan3 Policy DC2, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.