Appeal 3316926

The appeal is dismissed.

It is considered that the main issues are the effects of the proposed development on (a) the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and (b) the living conditions of the occupiers of [address].

The proposed development incudes an extension projecting from the front elevation of a semi-detached dwelling. The appeal property forms part of a group of 3 pairs of similarly deigned dwellings which include a sloping roof projecting forwards from the 2-storey element of the dwelling. This roof extends across a single storey addition projecting forwards and is about half the property’s width.

Although the character of this residential area is varied, the 3 pairs of semi-detached dwellings from a distinct group of properties within the streetscene, including along part of [address] at its junction with [address]. They have a consistency in their design, character and appearance, including the single storey front additions. Although originally a garage some of the owners have converted the space into habitable accommodation, including at the appeal property.

The proposed development would have a full width 2-storey front extension from which a single storey extension would project further forward equating to the same length as the existing addition. By reason of scale, siting and design, the appeal scheme would unbalance this pair of semi-detached dwellings and be detrimental to the character and appearance of the group of similarly designed dwellings. For these reasons, the resulting dwelling would be incongruous form of development which would have a negative impact on the appearance of the streetscene.

On this issue, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it would conflict with Policies CS11 and CS12 of the [name] (CS). Amongst other matters, these policies require proposals to preserve attractive streetscapes, integrate with the streetscape character and respect adjoining properties, including layout.

The flank of the proposed extension, both the single and 2-storey elements, would be sited a similar distance away from the shared boundary with [address] as the property’s side elevation. However, unlike the existing side elevation, the flank wall of the appeal scheme would project further forward than the property and, as a consequence, it would visually dominate the outlook from the kitchen window of No. 29.

Further, the proposed flank wall would be sited opposite the entrance door and, as such, it would physically and visually be overbearing for the occupiers of No. 29 when entering or exiting their property. This unacceptable harm would be accentuated by the higher ground level of the property when compared to No. 29.

By reason of siting and height, there would be the potential for a reduction in levels of daylight reaching the kitchen window of No. 29. Although any reduction in daylight would be associated with a kitchen window, this matter adds to the unacceptable harm which has already been identified.

For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] and, as such, it would conflict with CS Policy CS12 which refers to developments avoiding visual intrusion and loss of sunlight and daylight.

The appellants have referred to personal circumstances for seeking the erection of the proposed development but the circumstances referenced do not outweigh the unacceptable harm which has been identified. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.