Appeal 3313097

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development on the application form is a single storey rear extension, but the appeal form refers to a side extension. Due to the orientation of the appeal property facing the road, the proposal clearly involves a side rather than rear extension and, therefore, the above description reflects this.

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

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling within a rural setting, with a frontage on and access to [address]. The surrounding area is open agricultural land with sporadic built development along the rest of [address].

Policy D1 of the Maldon District Approved Local Development Plan 2014-2029 (2017) (the LDP) concerns design quality and the built environment. It requires development to respect and enhance the character and local context, and make a positive contribution against a number of criteria, including architectural style and height, size, scale, form, massing and proportion. Policy H4 of the LDP, concerning the effective use of land, requires that extensions should maintain or enhance the character of the original building and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a late Victorian building, with its original built form particularly apparent from the two storey frontage closest to [address], including a half-gable feature to the upper floor and uniform fenestration. The single storey front porch and development behind this is set well back from the original frontage and, as such, is subordinate to it. The two storey element is prominent in surrounding views due to its proximity to the road frontage and the limited height of the front boundary fence.

The side extension would be of proportionate width and height to the two storey host dwelling, would include a matching window and the external materials would match those of the host dwelling. However, the parapet wall enclosing the roof lantern would give the appearance of a flat roof, which would contrast unfavourably with the existing hipped roof. Moreover, the front elevation would not be set back from the main frontage of the original dwelling. Consequently, in contrast to the single storey element on the opposite side, it would not be subordinate to the principal built form. Instead, it would appear as an incongruous later addition to the original building, which for the reasons given, would not integrate visually with the host dwelling.

The height of the extension means that the upper part including the roof would be seen in relation to the original dwelling from the road frontage. While there is no footpath along [address] and therefore potentially few pedestrians, the extension would nonetheless be seen in passing views. The extent of the residential curtilage of the appeal property does not have a direct bearing on these findings.

Therefore, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Consequently, it is contrary to Policies D1 and H4 of the LDP, as described above.