Appeal 3305772

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.

The appeal building fronts [address] and is located within a flat agricultural landscape. Neighbouring dwellings include two small bungalows. The building has a relatively large curtilage which includes former agricultural buildings, one of which has been converted to a swimming pool. There is also a garage which is proposed for demolition.

The appellants consider that the dwelling is small and therefore appears incongruous in relation to the size of the curtilage. However, the appeal building is two storeys in height and does not appear to be particularly small, with its frontage being near the road, and in relation to the context of the smaller adjacent bungalows. The proposals include a front gable which would have the same ridge height as the appeal building. The gable would almost double the width of the dwelling and would add significant mass and bulk. It would have no set back from the dwelling frontage. Consequently, the extension would not appear as a subservient addition and would not maintain the prominence of the principal structure, contrary to advice in the [name] supplementary planning document. The gable and its arched ground floor windows would be of a design which would fail to complement the simple traditional form, proportions and pitched roof of the original building. The proposed sun room would fail to complement the overall design of the proposed development in this rural setting.

I therefore find that the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area. It would conflict with policy LP11 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan which requires proposals to demonstrate that they relate positively to their context and draw inspiration from the key characteristics of their surroundings. It would conflict with Local Plan policy LP12 regarding design implementation. It would also fail to comply with the design objectives within paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The appellants refer to other dwellings with gables facing the road at [address] and in Mereside. However, these examples are insufficient reason to justify the appeal proposal. That is because they do not all appear to involve later extensions and they are not seen directly in context with the appeal building.

The appellants have indicated that the site would be landscaped and the rural character of the area and biodiversity would be enhanced. The proposal would incorporate modern sustainability measures including a ground source heat pump. The proposal would also make use of previously developed land. However, these benefits would not outweigh the resultant harm to the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area which I have identified.

I appreciate that the property is old and note that the appellants consider it to be outdated in its layout. Nevertheless, the appeal proposal would not be the only means of improving and extending the building. I have taken all other matters raised into account. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.