Appeal 3320377

The appeal is dismissed.

The banner heading above uses the description of development that was given by the Council on their decision notice. This is a clearer and more accurate description of the proposal compared with that used on the application form which described it merely as ‘FF extension’.

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

The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling occupying a corner plot with a side return boundary to [address] and located within a wider residential neighbourhood comprising a mix of property types and sizes. No 46 has a hipped roof and a single-storey side extension which wraps around the front and rear elevations, and which extends up to the side boundary of the plot. The proposal is to extend the property sideways at first-floor level over the full width of the existing side extension.

The side extension would be set back from the front elevation of the building with a matching hipped roof and lower ridge line, in accordance with advice for two-storey side extensions contained within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document 4 – Design of [name] (SPD4). Although it would conflict with the SPD4 by exceeding over half the width of the existing building, I am not persuaded that the result would be a building that would appear disproportionate or incongruous. [address] is characterised by a mix of dwelling types and sizes, including an irregular and asymmetrical short terraced row directly opposite the appeal site at Nos 39, 41 and 41a. Building widths in the area vary considerably from plot to plot and I am satisfied that the extension would not appear out of keeping with the established local pattern of development in this regard.

However, there is a pleasing spacious quality to both [address] and [address] that is derived from a number of elements including the width of the roads, the separation distances between opposing dwellings, and their set-backs from the pavements behind garden frontages. [name] 46 extends up to the plot’s side boundary and back edge of the pavement along [address] at ground floor level, the space above the side extension at first-floor makes an important contribution to the open vista at the junction where [address] and [address] meet. This, in turn reflects the wider distinctiveness of the locality.

By entirely filling the gap between the existing first-floor flank elevation of No 46 and the plot’s side boundary, the extension would narrow the gap between opposing buildings at this junction and would noticeably erode the spacious qualities of the area. This would be intrusive and harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene. As such, by failing to respect the local context the proposal would fail to comply with the broad aims and objectives of SPD4 for safeguarding an area’s character, and the similar aims and objectives within the Council’s SPD14 - [name]. Moreover, it would directly conflict with criterion b of Policy 28: Character and Design of the Sutton Local Plan 2016-2031, adopted in 2018.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a planning permission granted at [address] for a two-storey side extension to a semi-detached dwelling located elsewhere within the borough. However, from my interpretation of the drawings that have been supplied to me as part of the appeal, the approved side extension at No 355 was set away from the side return boundary of that property. The circumstances at No 355 do not alter my findings having regard to the specific context at [address].

For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.