Appeal 3325727

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the streetscene.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi- detached dwelling, which is situated on a corner plot at the at the junction of [address] and the main [address] (A616). The side wall of the existing property is set back from the [address] frontage, which gives the streetscene a relatively spacious appearance at that point. I consider this to be an important characteristic of the area. This spacious appearance is also reflected on the opposite side, at number [address].

The proposal is to construct a two-storey side extension that would provide additional kitchen/dining space, plus a bike store on the ground floor with a new bedroom and ensuite on the first floor. The extension would be built in line with the existing front wall of the dwelling and the roof height would be the same. A virtually identical extension has been constructed on the adjoining semi at number [address] (number 4). The appeal proposal is effectively a resubmission of an earlier application that was refused by the Council on 20 September 2022 (22/01486/HOUSE).

The Council considers that the proposed extension would erode the existing space on the corner and that it would not be subordinate or integrate with the existing development. It also argues that it would unbalance the appearance of the semi-detached properties.

Consequently, the Council states that it would conflict with Policy 9 of the Newark and [name] (CS) and with Policies DM5 and DM6 of the of the Allocations and Development Management DPD and the Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document. These policies and guidance generally seek (amongst other things) to ensure that the design of new development is of high quality and that local distinctiveness is maintained. In my opinion they are consistent with the provisions of paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.

In reaching my decision, I have considered the appellant’s arguments that the proposed extension would comply with the Development Plan policies referred to above. I accept that the extension would mirror that at number 4 and, therefore, I find the appeal proposal would balance the pair of dwellings, notwithstanding the fact that it fails to comply with the Council’s requirement that extensions should appear subordinate to the existing property.

Nevertheless, the position of the appeal proposal is different to the extension at number 4. The existing side garden area of the appeal property provides a spacious appearance to this part of the streetscene and much of this space would be covered by the proposed extension. The reduction in the space would be harmful to one of the defining and important characteristics of the area and it would be unacceptably harmful to the appearance of the streetscene. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with the relevant policies of the Development Plan, as referred to in paragraph 6 above.

For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be dismissed.