Appeal 3311740

The appeal is dismissed.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling sited on a corner plot within a primarily residential area comprising similarly designed dwellings. By reason of the siting of dwellings to the rear of front gardens, which are landscaped and also used for parking, the streetscene along [address] has an open character and appearance.

The proposed development includes the erection of a 2-storey extension which would occupy the side garden between the property and the shared boundary with the road. Compared to the existing relationship, there would be a smaller gap between the flank wall of the resulting property and the boundary with the road. The general siting and scale of the appeal scheme would reflect a similar 2-storey side extension erected at [address] which is located on the opposite side of the junction. Other dwellings located at near-by junctions have not been altered in the same manner and they contribute positively to the open character and appearance at the junctions and the general streetscene.

[address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document includes guidance for extensions to dwellings sited on corner plots which, along with the current policies of the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy (LP), post-dates the alterations at No. 51. This guidance includes reference to extensions not projecting beyond the front elevations of properties on the adjacent roads where there is a consistent and prominent building line, not being more prominent in the streetscene than the existing property and being no more than half the width of the original frontage of the property. Subject to the consideration of building lines, extensions should also not take up more than half the width of the garden between the property and adjacent highway.

The proposed development would be more than half the width of the host property and, as a consequence, it would unbalance the appearance of this pair of semi-detached dwellings. Further, because of its size the appeal scheme would take-up more than half the width of the side garden.

By reason of scale and siting at the junction, together with the reduction in the width of the side garden, the resulting property would be more prominent in the streetscene that the existing dwelling. The scale and siting of the appeal scheme would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of this semi-detached property and the openness of the streetscene, including at the junction. This adverse effect is evidenced by the visual prominence of No. 51 as it has been enlarged.

Along parts [address] there is a strong consistency in the siting of the dwellings. Although there is only a pair of semi-detached dwellings sited to the rear of the property, the flank wall of the proposed extension would project beyond the building line established by these and other dwellings fronting the road. The proposed extension would not fully harmonise with the building line of the wider streetscene which is already exhibited by No. 51 and it contributes to the visual prominence of this enlarged dwelling.

Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed because the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it would conflict with LP Policy QE7. Amongst other matters, this policy seeks to ensure high quality development which reinforces local distinctiveness and enhances the character, appearance and function of the streetscene and also harmonises with the adjacent buildings.