Appeal 3325322

The appeal is dismissed.

Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO permits development involving the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of additional storeys, subject to specified limitations and conditions. The Council accepts that the proposal would meet with the limitations set out under [name].1.(a) to (k) and the conditions set out under [name].2.(2).

[name].2.(3)(a) then sets out the matters for which prior approval must be sought, with sub-paragraph (i) referring to the impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, including overlooking, privacy and loss of light, and (ii) referring to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the design and architectural features of (aa) the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse, and (bb) any side elevation of the dwellinghouse that fronts a highway.

The Council’s reason for refusal cites conflict with [name].2.(3)(a)(ii).

Therefore, the main issue in this case is whether prior approval should be granted having regard to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

The appeal site occupies a corner position at the junction of [address] and [address]. [address] is characterised by bungalows along its entire length, with the group from No 15 to 47 having particularly strong uniformity of scale and design. [address] has a limited number of two-storey dwellings fronting the street to the south of the appeal site, with the street otherwise bordered by the side boundaries and rear gardens of dwellings on [address] and [address] to the north.

In the assessment of ‘the external appearance of the dwellinghouse’ under [name].2.(3)(a)(ii) it is a matter of planning judgement as to whether consideration is given to the effect in terms of the building’s intrinsic design and/or to the effect in terms of the building’s relationship with adjoining or nearby properties.

In this case, the Council has not identified adverse effects with respect to the building’s intrinsic design, which would use matching materials, replicate the existing roof form and continue the existing front and rear fenestration pattern. I see no reason to disagree with this assessment.

However, the proposal would result in the appeal property having the only two storey dwellinghouse on [address]. It would represent an isolated, anomalous development that, due to its obviously greater height and bulk, would severely detract from the strong uniformity of scale and form which characterises dwellings in the street and contributes positively to its appearance. Moreover, its prominent position at the junction with [address] would allow its increased scale to be seen in vistas along both streets, exacerbating its incongruous presence.

I accept that, from certain points along [address], the enlarged dwelling at No 15 would be seen in the same views as two storey dwellings on [address] and [address]. However, these dwellings form distinct groups which are physically separated from [address] by rear gardens. As such, the enlarged dwelling would appear detached from this other built form and not as part of a consistent street scene on [address]. In any event, the dwelling would front [address] and it would be seen primarily as part of that street. Thus, any compatibility the dwelling may have with the scale of dwellings on [address] or [address] would not mitigate for the significant harm it would cause to the [address] street scene.

For these reasons, I conclude that the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. The Council has not referred to any development plan policies, but so far as it is relevant as a material consideration, there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

The appellant refers to the need to provide additional accommodation for a growing family and that the request is proportionate to their needs. However, these considerations are not relevant to my assessment, which is limited to the specific prior approval matters set out under [name].2.(3)(a).

For the reasons given, the proposal is not acceptable in respect of prior approval matter (ii) of [name].2.(3)(a) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.