Appeal 3331590

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The dwelling has a dual frontage with the pedestrian access from [address]. The attached neighbour, [address], has a matching frontage. The side of the property faces [address]. The house is set back from [address] beyond its raised garden. There is a very high stone boundary retaining wall adjacent to the [address] pavement which allows for the garden of the property to be set at the level of the house. Below the existing garden there is a garage contained behind this high roadside wall and accessed from the lower [address] level. The proposal includes the further excavation, below the garden, to provide for a gym and solarium at the garage level. This element has not been raised as a concern by the council. Their concern relates to the proposed garden room which would be attached to the ground floor of the house and would extend towards both [address] and [address], within the raised garden area.

The vegetation within the raised garden area currently offers some screening of the property. The floor plans indicate that the entirety of the front and side garden would be surfaced in limestone flagging, apart from an area of pond. The elevations show vegetation along the boundaries, beyond the new pedestrian access. It is suggested in the appeal statement that the existing vegetation could be retained. The evidence is lacking in this regard and the plans are inconsistent. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision: APP/B2355/D/23/3331590

The new structure would be viewed forward of the house from [address]. Even if I assume that it would be possible to retain much of the existing landscaping and provide enhanced planting, in views from [address], the new structure would be a prominent feature that would be entirely discordant with the character of the dwelling and its neighbour. Given the higher levels of the road to the east, the proposal would be even more dominant when looking back towards [address]. [address], the new structure would also be a prominent new feature despite the set back from the boundaries and the screening provided by the raised garden parapet. Even with enhanced landscaping, the side elevation in particular, would represent a discordant feature in these views.

The structure would be of high quality materials and the design would not be out of keeping in a rear garden situation where it would have limited wider prominence. However, a building of this nature, in such a prominent location, would represent poor design in this particular context. Given the prominence of this raised area, neither the form nor the design detailing of the garden room, would complement the street scene or the appearance of the property. Even with retained and enhanced landscaping, this new structure would detract from the character and appearance of this area. It would, due to its position, be contrary to policies HS9(a) and ENV1(a) of the Rossendale Local Plan 2019 - 2036 (2021). I also find conflict with the design requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. Although not anticipating this arrangement of house and garden, the proposal would also conflict with the design aspirations of the council’s Alterations and Extensions to Residential Properties Supplementary Planning Document 2008.

The proposal would require significant investment and would enhance the living accommodation. However, I am not satisfied that there are any matters that are sufficient to outweigh my concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal.