Appeal 3308957

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant points out that the proposal the subject of this appeal comprises an amended scheme to that originally proposed and that changes were made in response to concerns raised by the Council.

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

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling. It has a garden to the rear, a small single storey extension to the front and is set back from the road behind a driveway.

The appeal property is located within a residential area characterised by the presence of detached and semi-detached dwellings set back from the road behind front gardens and/or parking areas and with gardens to the rear.

During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings in the area have been altered and/or extended and that these changes generally appear in keeping with host properties and their surroundings.

I also noted during my site visit that the area is characterised by small groups of very similar dwelling types. This, the presence of gardens, the regular set back of dwellings and a commonality in respect of brick and tile roofs, provides for a pleasant sense of symmetry, greenery and spaciousness.

The appeal property is one of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings of very similar appearance. To the front, each of the four dwellings have cat-slip roofs, small dormers which project modestly from the roof slope and integral single garages. Each dwelling is different at ground floor level, but these differences do not appear so significant as to detract from the significant sense of uniformity afforded by the overall similarity of the dwellings.

The proposed development would introduce a markedly different form of development. The garage and front door would be replaced by windows and the dormer would be replaced by a significantly larger dormer, which would extend across much of the front of the dwelling and project considerably further forward than the existing dormer. 10.I find that the resultant extension would jar with and overwhelm the appearance of the host property. The large proposed dormer would dominate rather than appear sympathetic to the host dwelling’s cat slide roof and would draw attention to itself as a large, prominent and ungainly addition. 11.The harm arising from this would be exacerbated by the proposed use of metal cladding. This would appear as an alien material out of keeping with the brick and tile materials of the host property and its neighbours. It would serve to exaggerate the incongruous appearance of the proposed dormer. 12.Further to the above, the proposal would introduce a form of development so strikingly different to the appearance of neighbouring dwellings as to severely detract from the area’s sense of uniformity. In particular, the degree of symmetry that currently exists between the appeal property and its adjoining neighbour, Number [address], would be greatly eroded, not least by the introduction of a dormer that would appear large, bulky and awkward, in sharp contrast to No 77’s modest original dormer. 13.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 Core Strategy1 Policy ENV2; to Development Strategy2 Policies L1 and S6; and to the [address] Extensions SPG3, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.