Appeal 3312931

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a two storey end-of-terrace dwelling in a residential road of similar terraced dwellings as well as semi-detached properties.

Policy DM23 of the Chelmsford Local Plan (2020) requires that development, including extensions, should be of high quality design and compatible with the character and appearance of the area in terms of siting, scale, form, massing, materials and detailing.

The appeal property currently has a linear extension to the rear that runs perpendicular to the dwelling along the full depth of the garden. This includes a garden room at the rearmost part with covered storage areas connecting this to the host dwelling. Despite is overall depth, the existing extension is relatively discreet due to its single storey height and flat roof. The proposal involves adding a tiled roof form to the garden room to provide additional space.

The effect of the proposal would be to create a two storey outbuilding in the rear part of the garden. Due to its overall height, size and features such as the dormer window, the extended building would no longer have the proportions and appearance of a typical domestic outbuilding; instead it would compete visually with the host dwelling and would appear incongruous and uncharacteristic in this location to the rear of the back garden. Furthermore, the uneven, asymmetric roof would represent poor design in its own right. This would further draw attention to the incongruous appearance of the extended building in this location.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential gardens and there are no other examples of similarly large outbuildings. The extended building would be prominent in views from the surrounding dwellings and their gardens, from which views the effects described would be readily apparent. While it would not be visible from in front of the appeal property on [address], it would be seen in passing views from [address], across the car park of the church to the rear of the appeal property. It would also be particularly prominent from views within the church car park.

The development at No [address], drawn to my attention by the appellant, does not have a direct bearing in relation to the appeal proposal as it is well-separated from the appeal site and involves new dwellings rather than an extended outbuilding. Similarly, the development at No [address] appears to involve roof extensions to the main dwelling and not changes to an outbuilding as proposed here. As such, these developments and the church to the rear of the appeal property are not directly comparable to the effects of the appeal proposal simply because they involve buildings of greater height or bulk.

Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Consequently, it is contrary to Policy DM23 of the Chelmsford Local Plan, as described above. It is also contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, which advocates good design.

I acknowledge that the proposed extension is intended to create additional living space. However, these personal circumstances do not overcome the harm and conflict with development plan policies that I have found would result from the proposal.

For the reasons given it is concluded that the appeal should not succeed.