Appeal 3317623

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Charlton Park contains a mix of bungalows and houses, with the two property types being separated into discrete clusters. No 120C is located in an area characterised by bungalows. These vary in design, but they are low-level buildings with shallow pitched roofs and modest ridge heights. These are defining qualities which differentiate this locality from other parts of Charlton Park containing two-storey dwellings.

The appeal property is one of the largest bungalows in the road, with a wider footprint than many of the others. The simple, linear form is broken up by a forward projecting gable, but the building still has strong horizontal emphasis.

The proposal is to raise the height of the roof to create a second floor of living accommodation. The works would increase the width of the projecting gable and introduce a pair of dormers on the front roof slope. The new roof would be half-hipped, but this would not disguise the significant added mass and bulk which would give the dwelling a top-heavy appearance. The extended property would be prominent from public vantage points, sandwiched between modest bungalows, and it would stand out as an alien feature in a street scene which is dominated by single-storey buildings. [name] have noted the existence of two-storey houses in nearby [name], that development has a character of its own and No 120C does not read as part of it due to the intervening distance.

The appellant cites Paragraph 120 of the National Planning Policy Framework which supports opportunities to use the airspace above existing residential premises for new homes. However, this aspect of national policy is caveated by the statement that upward extensions should be consistent with the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene. That is clearly not the case here as the extended dwelling would be out of scale with those surrounding and it would be visually discordant as a result.

I conclude that the proposal would be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy CP6 of the [name] for Bath and [name] (2014) and Policies D1, D2 and D5 of the Placemaking Plan for Bath and [name] (2017). Amongst other things, these policies seek to secure high quality design which responds to local character and distinctiveness, including in relation to matters such as building heights, massing and scale.

I note that an appeal has been lodged in relation to the refusal of an application for prior approval (Ref 22/01666/EODPA) to enlarge the dwelling by construction of an additional storey. I have not had sight of the arguments for and against that scheme, but it is a materially different proposal in any event. I have dealt with the appeal before me on its merits.

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