Appeal 3312448

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the terrace in which it would be located.

The appeal property is part of a terrace of three dwellings which sits side on to the public highway along Crow Trees Park. The properties have split levels including basement levels, reflecting the gradient of the road on Crow Trees Park. There is disagreement between the parties as to what constitutes the front and the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling as a result of this somewhat unusual positioning. However, there is no necessity to establish which elevation is which for the purposes of determining this appeal, because there is no preclusion on development taking place to the front of a dwelling per se providing that its impact would be acceptable.

The terrace is of an attractive design, incorporating a mix of brickwork and render alongside design features such as projecting bay windows, porches and gable features. On the elevation on which the appeal proposal would be located there is a clear design coherence in terms of the positioning of the gables and the alignment and positioning of the windows of each of the dwellings relative to one another. There have been no subsequent additions or alterations that have materially changed the appearance of this elevation of the terrace. As a result of these factors the terrace contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The design of the proposed development is functional to provide additional floorspace, but in design terms it offers no more. It does not reflect the character of the existing dwelling or terrace, including in terms of the positioning of its window and door. Due to its design, it would have an incongruous relationship to the host dwelling and the terrace in which it would sit. Furthermore, by way of both its design and size it would appear as a bulky addition that would visually dominate this elevation of the host property and, to a lesser extent, the terrace. Notwithstanding that the appeal property sits in the middle of the three dwellings, there would also be some harm to the symmetry of the terrace, again arising from the design and size of the proposed development.

From the A65 [address] its visual impact would be limited by the relative ground levels, by intervening vegetation, by the fact that it would be set well back from the road and because the appeal dwelling is only glimpsed in between those dwellings that front onto this main road. The presence of existing mature hedging adjacent to the common boundary with [address] would also limit its visual impact in views taken from the public domain on Crow Trees Park, as things stand at the present time.

However, it is not evident whether the hedge in question could be retained in any meaningful form, as it is likely to need to be reduced in width to accommodate the appeal development. It may well also be on the side of the neighbouring property and therefore outside of the control of the appellant. If the hedge was no longer in place for any reason, the appeal proposal would be clearly visible in the street scene and more viewable in the context of the wider terrace. This would compound the visual harm that would be caused.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the terrace in which it would be located. Consequently, the proposed development fails to accord with Policy P10 of the [name] 2019 and [name] GP5 and BD6 of the Unitary Development Plan 2006, where they seek to protect character and appearance. There is also a conflict with Policy HDG1 of the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2011 in the same regard.

The appellant refers to support from adjoining occupiers for the proposal. However, this consideration does not justify the permitting of a harmful development.

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