Appeal 3329738

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The existing dwelling is a two storey end terrace property which has been designed to face south, so presenting its frontage to those approaching from [address]. The two neighbouring three storey mid-terrace properties have been designed with their frontages facing east. These each include a two storey feature bay with the main entrances between. The side, east facing, elevation of the appeal property is set back from the frontages of the adjacent houses and it has a simple design which sits comfortably and subserviently next to them. The design composition of the terrace overall has been well thought out to provide an attractive and active frontage to both the east and south. This arrangement is repeated within this housing area and represents a positive design feature.

The proposed extension, although relatively narrow in form, would nevertheless, extend beyond the line of the adjacent feature bays. It would also be viewed as a competing element in the eastern frontage of the terrace. Although the terrace is becoming more comprehensively screened by the landscaping to the east, the proposal would nevertheless detract from the appearance of these properties when viewed as a group and when passing along the path that serves the remaining three houses in the terrace. This additional structure would be at odds with the overall design and would detract from the original composition. Its form and detailing would not complement the www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision: APP/Q4245/D/23/3329738 existing design of the house or that of its neighbours and it would represent poor design in this particular context. It would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Given the above, the proposal would be contrary to policy L7 of the [name] 2012 as it would not be appropriate in its context; or enhance the street scene or character of the area. The proposal would also be at odds with the design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reference has been made to the Supplementary Planning Document, SPD4: A Guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations 2012. This particular arrangement of houses is not reflected within the examples referred to by the guidance. The design of this side extension would not be unacceptable if between two dwellings as it would be less prominent and generally screened from full view. However, given the particular circumstances of this layout, it would conflict with the general aspirations of the guidance, set out in paragraph 2.7, that extensions should fit in with their surroundings by not only complementing the dwelling but also the street scene.

The appellant advises that the proposal only requires consent because permitted development rights have been removed. As it does need permission, the merits of the design must be fully considered. I appreciate that changes have been made to try to address the council’s concerns but I find that the design remains unacceptable. It would result in improved accommodation for the residents which is a matter that offers some weight in its favour.

In conclusion, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of this terrace of dwellings and the wider area. The matters that weigh in favour of the proposal are not sufficient to outweigh this concern. I therefore dismiss the appeal.