Appeal 3330623

The appeal is dismissed.

The sole main issue relates the character and appearance of the proposed extension with respect to the existing dwelling and the local street scene.

The relevant policies of the adopted Wyre Forest Local Plan, DM24-25 and SP20, together require domestic extensions, as a general rule, to be subservient to, and to complement their host dwellings. Such extensions should reflect the scale and character of the existing building, neither dominating it nor detracting from its visual integrity. All design should be of high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness and complementing the character of the area. These policy provisions are consistent with national policy and are supported by locally adopted Design Guidance, including that an extension should not increase the front face width of a dwelling by more than 4/7ths.

The Council is concerned that the extension proposed in this case would wholly consume the existing house. That is patently untrue, at least in any literal sense. However, the development would extend the present detached house sideways by more than the guideline 4/7ths of its front face width, naturally reducing the current visual dominance of the front elevation within its plot.

That plot, which comprises the appeal curtilage, is at the end of the [address] cul-de-sac and is of generous proportions, compared with the regular pattern of detached houses fronting this side of the street, complemented by a very uniform street frontage of bungalows on the opposite side. Further exceptions to this regular pattern are No1 [address], which has been enlarged into its own end plot by a flat-roofed side extension and a detached dwelling on the end plot opposite the appeal site.

In the circumstances, I see no objection in principle to a substantial side extension making effective use of the space available within the appeal site. The question, with respect to the relevant policy provisions, is whether it would be sufficiently subservient to the existing house to avoid dominating it or detracting from its visual integrity and further, whether it would complement the local area and reinforce its distinctiveness.

Given the particular circumstances of the of appeal site as a generous end plot, I do not consider the exceedance of the guideline 4/7ths limit on frontage width to be of overriding concern. Nor do I consider objectionable in itself the siting and layout of the proposed extension, at an angle away from the front building line to follow the site boundary, given the particular location. Moreover, the construction and finishing materials proposed would complement those of the host dwelling and the rest of the street.

Importantly, however, the side extension would appear almost as tall as the roof ridge and the proposed gable would also rise close to the ridge of the main part of the extension. These factors would accentuate the width of the extended front elevation beyond the guideline value. I note that the extension gable would be narrower than the existing house main gable, finished in different materials and angled away from the street boundary. However, there would appear to be significant differences in the style and proportion of its fenestration, compared with the host.

Overall, I consider that, due to its scale and massing, the extension as whole would not be sufficiently subservient to the existing house. Nor, in my view, would it avoid dominating the main house or detracting from its visual integrity. It follows that the development proposed would fail to complement the local area and reinforce its distinctiveness.

Accordingly, the proposal is in unacceptable conflict with Polices DM24-25 and SP20 of the adopted Wyre Forest Local Plan.

Before reaching that finding, I have taken account of every matter arising in the written representations. There are no other factors of concern regarding such as residential amenity or highway safety, whilst the development would make effective use of the land available within the curtilage to provide enhanced, flexible living accommodation. However, no other matter is of sufficient weight to overcome the planning objection I have identified.

For these reasons, this appeal should be dismissed.