Appeal 3329740

The appeal is dismissed.

The address of the appeal site varies between the submitted documents, with the planning application form and decision notice referring to ‘Eastwood’, and the appeal documents ‘ [site address] ’. The address used above has been taken from the appeal form.

Since the appeal was lodged a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published. However, as the policies of most relevance to this proposal have not materially changed it has not been necessary to seek further comments from the parties.

At the appeal site visit it was evident that a vehicular crossover had been installed in front of the property, in the position indicated on the submitted plans. One on-site parking space has been created, with the remainder of the frontage soft landscaped. After the appeal application was refused, the Council issued a Certificate of Lawful Development (ref. 23/01498/CLP) to ‘layout permeable paved area to front’, confirming that it would be Permitted Development under the provisions of Class F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). Separately, the Council’s Vehicle Crossing Team granted consent to “install a new permanent vehicle crossing” outside of the property (ref. 23/00207, dated 5 October 2023).

This has effectively superseded the second reason for refusal, as the works could be undertaken (and have been in part) regardless of the outcome of this appeal. This decision will therefore deal only with the first reason for refusal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the appeal property, the semi-detached pair of which it forms part, and the streetscene.

The appeal property is a semi-detached house located on a prominent corner plot in a residential area. Within the vicinity there is a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings which share many of the same designs and detailing. The appeal property and the attached house, No.155, stand out in this part of the streetscene, as a pair surrounded by mostly terraced houses.

However, the pair is not uniform. At first glance, they appear balanced, but differ in terms of width, proportion, and the position and style of openings and materials. The appellants advise that No.155 has been extended, although no details have been provided. Nevertheless, the roof line and front elevation of the two properties are aligned, and a single-storey flat-roofed front projection spans the pair.

Although narrower than the host house, the proposed side extension would be a dominant addition as a result of its depth and height, and link with the proposed pitched roof on the front elevation. The visual impact on the host property and in the streetscene would be exacerbated by its design: the modest first-floor setback behind the facade and slightly lower roof ridge would be significant enough to be visually jarring, but not sufficient to create subservience. In support of Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Southend on Sea Development Management Document 2015 (DMD), the Council’s Design and [name] 2009 (DTG) advises that ‘subservience’ can generally be achieved by setting an extension back behind the existing building frontage line, and by integrating the design. No minimum dimension is specified in the DTG, but in this case the set back would not achieve the intended aim.

I note that nearby terraced houses have a similarly staggered roofline, but this is a repeated pattern to reflect ground levels, rather than an incongruous and contrived detail on one half of a semi-detached pair. I agree with the appellants, that being ‘visible’ does not automatically equate to harm, and that the location does not require an “overly preservationist” approach, but the prominence of the site means that the development would have more impact on the public domain than may be the case elsewhere in this residential area.

There is a mix of porch designs in the vicinity, and the front extension and introduction of a pitched roof over the existing would not detract from the appeal dwelling itself. However, it would be at odds with the flat roof it would abut, and this difference would be emphasised by this proximity and the expanse of the pitched roof. Semi-detached properties need not be ‘balanced’ by one another to have an acceptable appearance, but in this case the mismatched design would appear discordant for the reasons stated above.

However, whilst I have found that elements of the detailed design of the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the dwelling and streetscene, sufficient space would remain on the appeal site to avoid the spaciousness of the urban grain being undermined. The space around buildings on corner plots varies in the streetscene, and the appeal proposal would not result in the loss of a space which makes any particular contribution to the character of the area.

The appeal statement highlights the purposes of the Development Management system, and notes that the site is not within a conservation area or subject to any protective local policy designation. However, the Framework, as supported by the National Design Guide, is clear in its objective of achieving well-designed and beautiful places, and this applies to all locations, not only those with heritage value. The Framework requires that developments should add to the overall quality of the area and be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and layout, and for the reasons outlined above the proposal would not secure these aims.

I conclude that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property, the semi-detached pair of which it forms part and the streetscene. It would conflict with the Framework, and the strategic design aims of the Southend on [name] 2007 Policies KP2 and CP4; and with DMD Policy DM1, as supported by the DTG, which requires development to add to the overall quality of the area and to respect the character of the site, its local context and surroundings in terms including architectural approach, height, size, scale, form, massing, and detailed design features; and with DMD Policy DM3, which amongst other criteria requires additions to ensure successful integration with the original building, and to adopt a scale that is respectful and subservient to that of the original building and surrounding area.

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