Appeal 3299460

The appeal is dismissed.

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 two storey semi-detached dwelling. It is located in a residential area and occupies a prominent location, fronting [address] at its junction with [address].

During my site visit, I observed this part of [address] to be a busy road in a residential area. Whilst most dwellings in the area tend to comprise brick-built semi-detached dwellings, there is a two storey residential care home on the opposite side of [address] to the appeal property and a dormer bungalow on the opposite side of [address], Number [address].

Houses tend to be set back from the road behind parking areas and/or gardens and have long gardens to the rear. This and the presence of grass verges, street trees, low boundary walls and hedgerows, affords a green and spacious quality to the area.

The area where [address] runs alongside the host property is notably open and spacious. No. 894 is low in height and has a wide and long garden to the side and whilst its boundary wall alongside [address] is tall, it is still considerably lower than the height of the appeal property’s rear extension, opposite.

[address] slopes downhill, away from [address]. Thus, whilst there is a significant sense of openness as one enters [address] from [address], the appeal property appears as a dominant and prominent built feature as one moves along [address] from the bottom of the hill towards [address].

I also noted during my site visit that, whilst many dwellings have been altered and/or extended, such changes generally appear in keeping with host properties and as a consequence, there is a noticeable similarity and sense of rhythm in runs of houses, lending the character of the area an attractive sense of uniformity.

The appeal property is of brick and tile construction and shares a hipped roof with the adjoining dwelling, Number [address]. The property has been extended to the rear. This comprises a large single storey extension, of matching materials to the host property and also with a hipped roof. The extension also extends out to the side of the rear of the host property, well-beyond the build-line of the original dwelling’s side elevation. 10.Thus, whilst it does adjoin the rear of the original dwelling, partly due to its separate hipped roof and off-set position, to some considerable degree, the existing rear extension appears from some angles as something of a separate entity to the host property. 11.The proposal would result in the significant enlargement of the rear extension to create a two storey building with a hipped roof. Rather than appear as a seamless addition to the host property, the proposal would, to a considerable extent, appear as a partly disconnected building. 12.The visual impact of this would be increased as a result of the overall scale of the proposal, such that the resultant development would not appear subordinate to the host property but would, in effect, appear as a building of similar scale constructed immediately adjacent to the host property. This would create an unduly awkward relationship as each element of the overall dwelling would appear to compete for primacy. 13.Consequently, the proposal would appear as an unduly large addition and I find that it would appear overbearing, especially when seen from [address], the lower parts of which it would visually dominate. It would also appear incongruous in an area where other extensions appear in keeping with host properties and maintain the area’s sense of uniformity. 14.The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated as a result of the prominent location of the appeal property whereby the proposal would draw attention to itself as an incongruous feature. 15.Taking all of 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 Newcastle-under-Lyme and [site address] [name] (2010) Policy CSP1 and to the Council’s Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. 2