Appeal 3309450

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the extensions on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached house and its gardens on the corner of [address] and [address]. The house is elevated above the road which makes it very prominent, the front elevations of the neighbouring houses to the rear, Nos 22 and [address], are set back from the road and are roughly in line with the side elevation of [site address] . No 22 and 24 are also elevated whilst those on the opposite side of the road are much lower.

The proposal would, in part, wrap around the existing house so that both the rear and side elements would project sidewards closer to [address] than the front elevations of Nos 22 and 24 or the side elevation of [address], which is on the opposite corner of [address] and [address]. Enlarging the house by bringing the side elevation closer to the road would be out of keeping with the neighbouring houses in terms of their spacing and relationship to the road. As a result, the proposal would be prominent and intrusive in the street scene, particularly given the overall size and two storey height of the side extension.

Reference has been made to planning permission for a two storey extension to [address]. This would have extended the house closer to [address] but the planning approval, dating from 2016 now appears to have lapsed. Given this, I do not consider that it sets a precedent for allowing this proposal1. I accept that extensions of a similar design may have been approved and built 1 Planning Application Ref: 96396/16. elsewhere in the area but from the information submitted about these, none appear comparable to the proposed extensions in terms of its corner location and land levels. I therefore attach limited weight to these other examples and in any event my decision is based on the proposal before me and its effect on the character and appearance of this area.

I note that the two storey side extension would have a slightly lower roof than the existing house, it would be stepped back from the front elevation and its materials would match the existing house. It has also been amended since first submitted and existing landscaping would be retained and added to. I also note that there are no highway objections to the proposal and it would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Be that as it may, for the reasons stated, the proposed extensions would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

They would therefore conflict with Core Strategy2 policies CG3 and OA5 which, amongst other things, require development to conserve and enhance local distinctiveness and ensure that development has regard to the overall built character of the area and be compatible with it in terms of scale and massing. Moreover, it would also conflict with the general advice in the Council’s SPD3 regarding the appropriateness of an extension to its setting taking into account matters such as building lines in the street. Furthermore, it would conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework4 with regard to achieving good standards of design.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to the development plan and all other considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.