Appeal 3302378

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the local area.

The proposal is to enlarge and alter the appeal property, which is an attractive detached dwelling that has been amalgamated from a pair of semi-detached cottages. The walls are brick with the front and a side elevation painted white. The main roof is tiled with gables at each end. With 2 matching gables and first floor windows in the front façade, a central chimneystack and a single storey projection on each side of the 2-storey house, there is a broad symmetry and a balance to the front of the dwelling, which is distinctive.

The site falls within the countryside beyond the settlement of Glentworth. It is also within an Area of [name] (AGLV), where the primary policy objective is to protect and enhance the intrinsic value of the landscape.

In my view, the conversion of 2 cottages into a single dwelling has essentially and successfully retained the simple form, modest proportions and traditional style of former rural cottages in the countryside. The inter-visibility between the site and the countryside surrounding it reinforces this impression. When seen from [address], the appeal property remains clearly legible in the street scene and the landscape as former cottages, the presence of which often signal that a larger rural estate lies beyond. In doing so, [site address] relates well to and retains a strong visual and historical association with the countryside that surrounds the village. As such, the appeal dwelling positively contributes to the character and qualities of the countryside and the AGLV.

The proposed front extension has been designed to reflect the style of the main house with a third gable introduced to face the road that would echo the pattern of its existing counterparts in the front façade. The new roof lines would follow those of the main dwelling and the pattern of windows, detailing and external materials would also match those of the existing building.

However, a new substantial 2-storey built form would be introduced to one side of the main house that would unbalance and visually dominate the front elevation. By noticeably stepping forward of the main front wall, the new gable would also be a significant and prominent feature of the completed building. It would compete with and thus detract from the existing gables and the otherwise flat front wall of the main house (save for the porch), which appear to be important features of the building’s original design.

As a result, the appeal scheme would fail to respect the modest proportions, traditional style and appearance of the original building from which the existing dwelling was formed, to the detriment of its character and appearance. With the new built form in place, the building would no longer be readily interpretable as a particular rural typology. It would have a far more uncertain historical and visual association to the countryside and its value and significance as an example of a former rural estate style property would be notably reduced. Consequently, the proposal would materially reduce the positive contribution of the appeal property to the countryside and the AGLV. In doing so, it would have a deleterious effect on the character and appearance of the local area, which would be evident from the road just in front of the site.

I saw that some properties in the wider area that are also within the AGLV include 2-storey elements that are set forward of the principal elevation including those to which the appellant has referred and provided photographs. However, these existing forward projections appear to form part of the dwelling’s original design rather than involve a later addition, as proposed. Furthermore, none of the properties cited are similar in style to [site address] . As these examples are not directly comparable with the proposal, I attach only limited weight to them in support of the appeal.

On the main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policies LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP) and Policy 3 of the Glentworth Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2036. These policies seek to ensure that development achieves high quality sustainable design which adds to local character, landscape and townscape. It also is at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as it seeks to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character and adds to the overall quality of the local area.

Once complete, the proposal would provide valuable additional living space particularly for the appellant’s relatives who find the existing narrow staircase too difficult to use. I am sympathetic to this desire. However, personal circumstances seldom outweigh more general planning considerations. These benefits do not provide an exceptional justification to outweigh the identified harm, to which LP Policy 17 of the CLLP refers.

The size of the proposed extension reflects the space requirements of providing additional bedrooms with bathrooms. A good-sized garden and ample space for off-road parking would remain with the new addition in place. The proposal would make efficient use of land available within the plot with no impact on the character within the main village. Others raise no objection, and the living conditions of the occupiers of properties in the local area would not be affected. I also acknowledge that alternative options to enlarge [site address] to the side or rear are problematic. However, these considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.