Appeal 3316010

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

No.23a is a detached, single-storey property located at a triangular junction of roads within ‘The Broads’ residential area. The area primarily comprises terraced and semi-detached, two-storey dwellings and bungalows.

The appeal property is different, formed of what was a detached garage to No.23. It has the same pitched roof form as the neighbouring properties but has a subservience and the space around the property is more limited. The property has a conservatory and an outbuilding which forms the southern boundary, it also adjoins a row of flat-roofed garages to the north.

The proposal would not alter the footprint, but the additional floor would significantly increase the property’s height and massing. Additionally, integrating the conservatory through the changes to the materials visually adds to its scale. The half-hipped roof design would be at odds with the prevailing form and would have a bulky appearance. As a result, the proposed dwelling would have an incongruous appearance, which due to its siting would be intrusive in the street scene where it is seen from various points.

I accept that the external space has served the existing one-bedroom property for several years. However, unlike the regular layout of its neighbours with south-facing rear gardens, the amenity space located to the side is limited in size and would be overshadowed for a large proportion of the day. It would therefore provide a very restricted provision for a family-sized property, as proposed, which it would serve for the long term and not just for the current occupiers.

The separation to the neighbouring property, No.23, would remain the same and the nearest element would be single storey. I therefore do not find that the development would have an overbearing impact on the living conditions of that property. Nonetheless, the scale and form of the development would be disproportionate to the plot and out of keeping with the surrounding area.

Overall, the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would thereby fail to accord with Policy HE2 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2014 and the National Planning Policy Framework which promote high-quality development which is compatible with its surroundings including having regard to site coverage, scale, bulk, height, visual impact, and ensuring that the development functions well over its lifetime.

The application was also refused for failing to safeguard protected species. A preliminary appraisal advised that the property had the potential to support roosting bats and that further survey work would be required. There is no information before me in relation to the phase 2 assessment, however having found against the proposal on the main issue this would not alter my overall findings.

For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed.