Appeal 3316183

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal would involve a number of alterations to the appeal property, however the Council have outlined in their decision notice and the planning officers delegated report that their concerns relate specifically to the proposed side extension. Having reviewed the plans and documents before me and following the observations I made during my site visit, I agree with the Council that the single-storey porch, the rear extension, and the alterations to the drive, including the widening of the access, would be acceptable alterations to the appeal property. As a consequence, the primary focus of my decision relates to the side extension component of the appeal proposals.

The main issue in this case is the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider area.

The appeal property is a mid C20 two storey dwelling which is characterised by its conventional appearance, which follows the general characteristics found elsewhere along [address] and the wider context. During my site visit, I noted a number of properties in the surrounding area have extended to their side elevations in a two storey manner, some of which have been more successfully executed than others.

The proposed side extension would be lower in massing than the building form of the appeal property; it would provide for a roofline that would angle away Appeal Decision: APP/F0114/D/23/3316183 from the street elevation and the boundary with No. 5 adjacent; and would not project forward at the first floor level of the main building line of the appeal property or other properties along [address]. As a result, I am of the view that the proposal would not result in an over-dominant addition in terms of its siting, height and form. I am also satisfied that the proposed use of materials would be acceptable, these would reflect the existing materials found on the appeal property and other dwellings in the surrounding area.

However, the proposed first floor elevation of the side extension fronting towards [address] would provide for no window openings, and therefore would present as tiling only. In my view, the over dominance of solid materials to any void, would result in the proposed side extension appearing unbalanced with the remainder of the front elevation of the appeal property, which contains window openings at its first floor level which are spaced apart in a methodical manner.

[name] have taken account of the appellant’s reasoning for not providing an opening to this elevation and I acknowledge the wider submissions presented in the appellant’s Statement of Case, including other extensions in the surrounding area and the visual interest of the proposed exterior finishes, these do not override the concerns I have expressed. I consider that the lack of a void or visual break on the road facing elevation of the proposal would unduly draw the eye and would therefore appear out of place. Consequently, it would harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider area.

As a result, I find conflict with policies D2 and D5 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan 2011-2029 [name] & Placemaking Plan (2017), insofar as they seek development to contribute positively to and not harm local character and distinctiveness, and require extensions to complement and enhance the host building. The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021, which amongst other matters requires development to be sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment.

[name] find a number of the elements of the proposal to be acceptable, this does not address my concerns with the lack of a break in the material finish to the upper floor of the [address] facing elevation of the proposed side extension, which I consider would have a detrimental effect on the characteristics of the appeal property and that of the wider area.

As a result of these negative effects, the appeal proposal is in my view unacceptable, and contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that would justify a decision contrary to the provisions of the development plan, in this case.

For all the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.