Appeal 3313481

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed works to the house at No. 14 on the appearance of the house and the street scene.

The appeal dwelling is a single storey detached house with accommodation with in its pitched roof. It is set well back from and between a row of mixed design houses fronting [address]. [name] proposal is to modernise and extend their home by adding first floor and ground floor side extensions.

In my view, the principle of the proposed alterations and extensions to the existing dwelling at No. 14 is entirely reasonable and unobjectionable. The Council Officer’s report notes that a number of elements of the project would be acceptable. For example, raising the roof ridge would not have significant impact on the street scene; replacement of the conservatory glass roof with tiling to match the existing dwelling was considered acceptable; the ground floor side extension and first floor rear extension would not be overbearing to the neighbouring properties; the works would not result in a loss of light to others. The Council report said additional fenestration on the western and eastern elevations would cause a degree of overlooking of neighbouring rear amenity spaces, but would not be significant enough to warrant a refusal, subject to the side windows being obscure glazed. There would be compliance with the principles of policy SE1 to the Cheshire East Local Plan and saved policy GR6 of the Congleton Borough Local Plan; there would be no adverse impact on the safety or operation of the adjacent highway. I agree, however, with the Council’s critical assessment of the design of the project, particularly in respect of the adverse effect of the flat roofed rear extension on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

As the Appellants said, design is subjective and tastes will vary. Some may prefer modern designs, others perhaps looking for more traditional layouts. The context can also be important. As the Appellants pointed out, there are no [name] such as Listed Buildings or a Conservation Area to be considered here that might otherwise suggest retention of designs of similar characteristics to those of the original building or neighbouring buildings. Nevertheless, the first floor rear extension, particularly with regard to its flat roofed construction would, as the Council concluded, appear dominant and disproportionate. Whilst the design of an extension can deliberately contrast with that of the original building, an unacceptable discordancy and incongruity can arise. That, in my view, would be the situation here. Some expansion of the existing dwelling at No. 14 is appropriate and would be compatible with its larger neighbouring dwellings. But the flat roof extension would not be in keeping with the character of the street. As the Council said, the appeal project would unacceptably detract from the visual amenity of the locality and the character and appearance of the existing dwelling at No. 14.

Policy SD1 to the Cheshire East Local Plan Local Plan Strategy 2010 – 2030 requires development to contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural, built, historic and cultural environment; policy SD2 says development is to contribute positively to an area’s character and identity, creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness in terms of height, scale, form and grouping, choice of materials and external design features. In my view, the exhortations of those policies are not met by the current timber clad flat roofed element of the appeal design for the improvement and extension to the dwelling at No. [site address] .

As the appeal dwelling is set back and partially screened from [address], there would be some mitigation of the adverse effects on the street scene, but I nevertheless conclude that planning permission should not be granted.

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