Appeal 3319111

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of [site address] and the surrounding area.

The application site is accessed via a private lane off [address]. The lane serves two dwellings, the appeal property and neighbouring dwelling [address]. The dwellings are detached, and single storey and it appears that they would have originally been constructed to mirror each other in terms of design. Neighbouring property [address] has a pitched roof extension on the front elevation, which connects to a flat roofed garage. There are no extensions on the front elevation of the appeal property. To the south of the front elevation of [site address] is a detached double garage, based on the submitted information, this garage is shared by both 1 and [site address] .

The proposed extension would provide living accommodation and would mimic the design and footprint of the extension and garage on the front elevation of the neighbouring property. It is acknowledged that this approach would result in the dwellings appearing symmetrical. However, the scale of the proposal is such that the extension would project several metres over a large proportion of the front elevation. As such it is considered that the proposal would dominate the principal elevation of the dwelling.

The proposed extension and existing double garage would result in the development of the majority of the western boundary of the plot, and the end of the narrow lane, making it feel cramped. As such it is considered that the proposal would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the area.

As detailed above, the proposal reflects the extension and garage on the front elevation of [address]. However, I do not have details of the circumstances that led to these extensions being accepted. I noted the position of the existing shared double garage to the front of the appeal property, there is no similar development to the front of [address]. The proposed extension would provide habitable rooms, whereas the garage makes up large proportion of the extended area on the front of the neighbouring property. As such, I do not consider them to be a direct parallel.

I conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of [site address] and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies CS1 and CS5 of the [name]: Local Plan ([name]) DPD (2012), Policy DM01 of the [name]: Local Plan (Development Management Policies) DPD (2012), these policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework in requiring the new development respects local distinctiveness. The proposal is also contrary to [name]: Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016), which specifies that extensions should be subordinate to the original house and should not be overly dominant.

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