Appeal 3320874

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is located within a uniformly designed estate which includes a mixture of semi-detached and short terraces of two storey family houses, that are consistently designed and sited. They have a combination of fully rendered and part rendered/part brick elevations and other than at the end of the terraces they have predominantly flat front elevations. This together with the generous spaces between buildings, grass verges, open grassed area and sloping topography contribute to the spacious, uncluttered and uniform suburban character and appearance of the street scene and the estate as a whole.

A number of dwellings have been altered and extended and these changes have blended into the street scene with varying degrees of success. Whilst the single storey front additions have broken the continuous flat front building lines, they are typically modest in size and do not have a material impact on the flat and uniformly designed upper floor front elevations. The two-storey side extension at No.1 is set back from the front elevation of that property and respects the proportions and detailing of the host and adjacent dwellings.

The appeal dwelling comprises an inner terraced house that fronts onto the central grassed area within [address]. It has a flat frontage that is consistent with the attached dwellings on the north-westerly side. On the other side the appeal dwelling is slightly recessed behind the gabled fronted house at the end of the terrace.

Whilst the rendered walls of the terraces were originally painted white, a number of them are now painted a variety of colours and this includes the appeal property. Also, the ground floor front window in the appeal dwelling has been replaced with a pair of French doors and 2 rooflights have been inserted in the front roof-slope. Both individually and collectively their impact on the street scene has been modest.

It is noted that planning permission has been granted for a simple flat roofed canopy to the front of the appeal dwelling and the insertion of narrow French doors and a Juliet balcony on the first-floor front elevation. Whilst these features will introduce further changes to the front elevation of the appeal dwelling, the ground floor of the appeal dwelling would remain fully visible and the overall proportions and uniformity of the terrace would not be materially changed.

Policy DM1 of the Hastings Local Plan Development Management Plan 2015 (DM), seeks to ensure that new development protects and enhances local character, taking account of the surrounding neighbourhood’s context. Paragraph 130 of the Framework, similarly seek to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character and maintains a strong sense of place.

It is noted that a number of residents have written in support of the proposal. Notwithstanding this support the proposal needs to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless other material considerations dictate otherwise.

Whilst the approved first floor balcony at No.1 is similar in size to the proposed balcony, it does not project beyond the main front gabled elevation of the dwelling and its side privacy screen is viewed against the first-floor flank wall of the dwelling. Conversely the proposed balcony would project forward of both the host dwelling and the terrace as a whole. As a consequence, its tall obscure glazed cheeks in particular would be prominent within the street scene. They would appear as a discordant feature and would disrupt and undermine the uniform character and appearance of the first floor front elevations of the host dwelling, the terrace and the street scene as a whole.

This harm would outweigh the benefits for the appellant that would result from the provision of the proposed balcony and is not a matter that could be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of conditions.

For these reasons, whilst I have found in favour of some aspects of the proposal, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with DM Policy DM1.