Appeal 3327340

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue in this case to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property, [site address] is a semi-detached two-storey dwelling. It faces on to [address] and is located on the corner of [address] and [address]. The area is characterised by an eclectic mix of mainly two-storey residential dwellings. They are generally set back from their road boundaries making for a general sense of spacious.

Due to its design, in particular it’s ornate canopied entrance with balcony over and projecting raised hipped roof, its fenestration pattern and the steep pitched gable roof, chimney and two-storey glazed screen of the side elevation this property has a strong vertical emphasis to its design which makes it both a dominant and prominent building in the street scene.

The appellant proposes a wrap-around side and rear single storey addition with a lean-to roof to form an enlarged open plan living area on the ground floor. A separate modest single storey side extension, which the Council found to be acceptable due to the wider side garden at this point, is also planned to form a new utility room with a hipped roof.

The flank elevation of 207, which already projects in front of the neighbouring properties to the rear facing [address], is very close to its side boundary Further, number 85 opposite is set well back from its [address] boundary. Accordingly, the lounge extension would significantly reduce the gap formed by the side garden and would thereby serve to denude spaciousness of the area more generally. This in my judgement would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant suggests that the larger side extension has been designed to complement the existing architectural features of the property. However, in my judgement, this side addition as designed would, in contrast to the design of number 207 have a contrary dominant horizontal emphasis. This would detract from the architectural integrity of the original design of the property. In addition, the extension would appear to have been designed with little or no regard to its abutment to existing important architectural features of the host property, such as the flank gable projection.

These considerations add to my overall conclusion on the main issue that the development as proposed would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. To allow it would therefore be contrary to the objectives of Policies CS8 and CS17 of the Elmbridge Borough Council – [name] ([name] 2011), Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan ([name] 2015), Elmbridge Borough Council Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document Companion [name] ([name] 2012) and the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to, amongst other things, the quality of development and the need to preserve or enhance the character of the area.

I appreciate the benefits that the proposed development would have for the quality of the family life of the appellant. However, given the harm that I have identified this is not a compelling reason to allow the proposed addition.

The appellant has referred me to similar extensions to other properties nearby. Whatever the background to those cases, their existence is not an appropriate justification for permitting that proposed here, which I have considered on its individual planning merits.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.