Appeal 3323443

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal dwelling is located on the eastern side of [address] within a row of two storey detached dwellings of varying form and design. Some dwellings have single storey front projections which generally align with the building line of adjacent dwellings. The dwellings have deep frontages with landscaped front gardens. A housing development located on the opposite side of [address], and is set behind a mature hedgerow. The deep frontages and landscaping along [address] provide a sense of openness and verdant character to the area.

The appeal proposals relate to the construction of a single-storey front extension with pitched roof. The proposed forward projection would be significant, breaking the established building line of the dwelling and its neighbours. The proposals would bring built development much closer to [address] resulting in a prominent and incongruous form of development which would erode the existing sense of openness. This would be to the detriment of the established character of this part of [address].

The extension would be provided on the existing driveway which would limit vehicular accessibility to the site from the existing dropped kerb. Therefore, a new point of access is proposed. The proposed dropped kerb would lead to the remaining front garden area which would consequently be lost to hardstanding. This loss of soft landscaping would further compound the detrimental effect that the development would have on the verdant and open character of the area. Further, the extent of proposed built form to the front of the property is likely to limit the opportunity for any meaningful compensatory landscaping to be provided.

On my site visit, I observed the examples of forward projections and garages cited by the appellant, which includes a number along [address]. The forward projection of No22 [address] does not project significantly beyond the front elevation of No20 [address] and as such is not prominent on the streetscene. Likewise, the projection to No30 [address] does not project significantly beyond the front elevation of No28 [address] and is set back from the public highway, maintaining the sense of openness. The projection to No36 [address], when viewed from the north, is set against the backdrop of No1 [address] Lane, which is a two-storey dwelling. Therefore, none of these examples are directly comparable to the appeal scheme.

Within the wider housing estate, I observed that the properties on [address], [address] Lane, and [address], have a more intimate and close-knit relationship with their neighbours. The dwellings also have a closer built relationship with their streets and, therefore, a lesser degree of openness. Given the differing context in this regard, I do not find the forward projections to these properties to be directly comparable.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposals would therefore fail to accord with Policy DM1 of the Blaby District Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document (2019), Policy CS2 of the Blaby District Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (2013), and Policy H6 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (2022). Together, amongst other things, these seek to achieve high quality design in development proposals.

For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed.