Appeal 3324300

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development that appears in Oxford City Council’s (the Council) decision notice is more comprehensive than that stated in the application form and better describes the proposed development. I have therefore used that description for the purposes of the appeal.

Since the appeal was submitted, the Council has granted planning permission1 for a similar extension proposal. As that permission is extant and capable of implementation, I have focused my assessment on the difference between the permitted scheme and the appeal proposal.

In the course of the appeal, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated, with a new version issued in September 2023. As the changes in the new version have no bearing on the main issue in this case, it was not necessary for me to consult the parties.

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

No [site address] is a semi-detached dwellinghouse which is situated on a corner plot at the junction with [address]. It is an attractive period property, with its front elevation faced in red brickwork with buff brick 1 Oxford City Council planning application reference 23/01258/FUL granted on 8 August 2023. detailing, and a projecting bay window. The side gable elevation which faces [address] is rendered and painted, and it is set back from the footway by a short distance behind a low boundary wall. To the rear of the house there is a single storey extension and an attached lean-to conservatory type structure, with a garden beyond, which contains some small trees. The garden boundary to [address] is currently formed by a fence made of green painted corrugated sheeting panels.

The appeal proposal seeks to replace the single storey additions with a kitchen and garden room extension. It would be of a modern design with its low-pitched roof and upper walls clad in light grey recycled cladding, with a brick wall on the lower level facing towards [address]. The end (east) elevation would be extensively glazed, with dark grey coloured aluminium framing.

The extension would project a similar distance into the garden as the structures it would replace, but would span most of the width of the plot. This means that it would project forward of the line of the host dwelling’s main gable wall and be close to the edge of the footway on [address]. The Council has recently granted permission for a revised proposal which sets back the side wall in line with the gable wall, maintaining a short space between the extension and the [address] footway.

I observed that this stretch of [address] is characterised by buildings being typically set back from the road, behind gardens, parking spaces and path widths. This contributes to the open and spacious character of the area. I have noted the appellant’s submissions, including references to other modern architecture and materials in the locality, the fact that this is a single storey addition, and the desire to avoid creating ‘dead’ space. However, it is a fairly substantial modern addition to a traditional property and the projection (beyond the approved scheme) forward to [address] would lead to it appearing imposing and incongruent, in a streetscene where buildings close to the footway are uncharacteristic.

The appeal proposal would therefore conflict with policy DH1 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 (adopted June 2020), policies GSP4 and CIP1 of the Headington Neighbourhood Plan (adopted July 2017), and paragraph 130 of the Framework, which all seek to ensure that new development is well designed and respects local character and context.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.