Appeal 3315946

The appeal is dismissed.

The name of the appellant has been redacted on the planning application submitted as part of this appeal. I have therefore taken the appellant’s name from the appeal form. The appellant’s submission includes a statement confirming this to be correct.

I have taken the description of development in the banner above from the Council’s decision notice as it is more concise than the description included on the planning application form. The appellant has confirmed that he is satisfied with the amended description.

The main issues in this appeal are: [name] effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area; and II. The effect on the setting of the listed wall.

The appeal property is a large detached dwelling which is located on a corner plot and is therefore prominent when viewed from the off-shoot part of [address] and Cadogan Park. The appeal proposal seeks to construct a range of extensions, of varying designs, to the property.

Taken together, the proposed extensions would subsume all four elevations of the existing house. This would give rise to a property with no cohesive design. Whilst the extensions would be set down below the existing ridgeline, given their overall mass and bulk, they would not appear subservient to the original structure. As such, the appeal proposal would unacceptably erode the simple character of the property and would give rise to a sprawling dwelling.

I acknowledge the appellant’s assertion that flat roof extensions can sometimes provide attractive contemporary additions to host properties of a traditional form. However, the success of this design approach rests on proposals responding to the context of the original dwelling. In the case of the appeal scheme, the excessive footprint of the flat roof rear extension, as well as the lack of design reference to the existing dwelling, means this element of the scheme would not sit comfortably within the context of the host property.

I also note that the two proposed side extensions would be set down from the existing ridge height and set back from the front elevation. I accept that they would each appear as subordinate to the host dwelling if considered in isolation. However, they form part of a wider scheme and as such I must consider the overall impact of the appeal proposals. [name] have described, overall, the works would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

In view of the above, the scheme would create an incongruous arrangement that would not respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Given the prominent position of the dwelling within the streetscene, the dwelling would also be harmful to the character and appearance of the immediate area.

Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policies OS2, OS4 and H6 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (2018), the [name] (2016) and Section 12 of the NPPF which, taken together, seek to secure good quality design which protects the character and appearance of the dwelling and area.

The appeal site is separated from the [name] listed boundary wall of [name] by two roads and a band of green open space, which includes a number of protected trees. Consequently, a good distance would be retained between the listed structure and the appeal property and views between them would be largely obscured by a significant band of mature trees. On this basis, the proposed scheme would preserve the setting of the Listed Structure and there would be no harm to the heritage asset.

The proposal would therefore meet the requirements of Policies EH9 and EH11 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (2018), and Section 16 of the NPPF which, taken together, seek to safeguard designated historic assets.

I have considered a number of matters raised by the appellant in support of the scheme. I recognise that the appeal proposals have been significantly amended from another larger scheme to extend the property, which was previously refused planning consent. However, these revisions are not sufficient to overcome the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the dwelling and area.

I recognise that planning consent has been granted at the site for a large replacement dwelling which would be substantially different in character and appearance than the existing property. However, that scheme is for an attractive dwelling with a unified design, which would sit more comfortably within the context of the site and area than the incoherent appeal scheme.

I have considered other examples of extensions to properties on [address] highlighted by the appellant. These differ from the appeal scheme as they represent the sympathetic and cohesive extension of those properties, rather than the inharmonious appeal scheme which I have described. Given these differences in circumstances, and also taking into account that each proposal must be considered on its own merit, I attach limited weight to these developments in making my decision.

I acknowledge that extending an existing property is a more sustainable approach than demolishing a house and building a replacement.

None of the other matters raised alter or outweigh my conclusion that the proposed development is not acceptable.

[name] find that the proposals would preserve the setting of the listed boundary wall to [name], this would not be sufficient to outweigh the significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and immediate area that I have described. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.