Appeal 3325251

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council changed the description of development from that stated on the application form in the interests of clarity. I consider that the amended description accurately describes the appeal scheme and accordingly I have adopted an amended description in the heading above.

Since the submission of the appeal the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) has been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) (the Framework). However, in relation to this appeal the aims of both sets of policies are similar. No party would be prejudiced or caused any injustice by me proceeding with the appeal in light of this change in policy.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the character and appearance of the area; and (ii) highway safety.

The site is within a predominantly residential area characterised by predominantly traditional semi-detached two-storey properties, forming a harmonious built form. Whilst properties differ in terms of materials and design, pairs of semi-detached properties share common features providing a regular pattern of development.

The appeal property is a modest two storey property located on the corner of [address] and [address], whilst the property has the address of [site address] , the primary elevation fronts [address].

Though the proposed single storey extension would extend the property towards [address] and further beyond the building line with other properties in [address], the property is viewed in the context of [address].

I observed during my site visit that single storey side extension/garages were evident in the area. The adjoining property, [address] has a single storey garage attached to the side elevation. As such the proposed single storey extension whilst on a prominent corner adjacent a roundabout would not be out of keeping with the area and would not unbalance the semi-detached properties.

The Council did not raise any concerns relating to the alterations to the front garden and relocation of the brick wall to the boundary line on the road. From the information before me I do not disagree. 10.I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. There is no conflict with Policies GEN2 and H8 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (2005) (the Local Plan) which seek to, amongst other things, support development which respects the original building and is compatible with the scale, form, layout and appearance of surrounding buildings. 11.There is also no conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure developments are of good design appropriate and sympathetic to their surroundings.

The Council contend in reason for refusal No. 2 that the proposed development conflicts with Policy SW3 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2021-2036 (SWNP). I disagree Policy SW3 relates to a site allocation – Land at [name], to rear of [address]. Policy SW7 relates to design, it can be seen from my reasoning that I find no harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The Appellant has drawn my attention to the detached garage with parking space to the rear of the site, whilst it is contended this is within the ownership of the Appellant it has not been included within the red line of the application site. Notwithstanding this the parking space created to the front of the property facing [address] would be little different to the existing parking space fronting [address].

I note that the Highway Authority have concerns relating to manoeuvrability of vehicles within the site due to the reduction in space between the proposed development and the corner of the plot. The Appellant has not provided substantive evidence to demonstrate that vehicles would be able to manoeuvre safely within the site.

I conclude that the proposed development has failed to demonstrate that there would not be any unacceptable effect on highway safety. There is conflict with Policy GEN1 of the Local Plan which amongst other thing seeks to ensure developments do not compromise road safety.

It has been brought to my attention by the Appellant that the proposed development is required due to personal circumstances. [name] sympathise with the situation, I have not been provided with demonstrable evidence to convince me that there is no alternative in terms of development which could meet the needs of the occupants. I therefore give this limited weight.

[name] have found that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area, this does not outweigh the failure of the Appellant to demonstrate that highway safety would not be compromised.

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