Appeal 3331997

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the architectural integrity of the host building, the semi-detached pair and thereby the character and appearance of the street scene.

Normay is one half of a semi-detached pair of two-storey houses. It has an attached single storey garage to the side. The pair have hipped roofs, and when viewed from the street have retained their original form, fenestration pattern and much of the original architectural detailing.

[site address] in contrast is made up of an eclectic mix of residential properties of a wide range of architectural forms and styles.

The appellant proposes an attached gable roofed two-storey side extension along with a single storey, flat roof rear addition. The Council found that the single storey rear addition, that would replace a lean-to conservatory, would, as designed be acceptable. From what I have seen and read I have no reason to disagree with its findings in this instance.

The proposed extension would, in terms of its fenestration pattern and incorporation of a bay window and materials match to some extent the design detailing of the host property. I note that the extension would be slightly wider than half the width of the host property. However, I do not consider that, in this case this would in itself cause significant visual harm. Nevertheless, the introduction of a gable roof, in contrast to the existing hipped roofs of the semi-detached pair would serve to denude the symmetry of the of the pair of houses and result in a dominant and unsympathetic addition to the property.

Further, while I agree that it not always necessary to set the street façade of a new side addition back behind the front wall of the host property, given the semi-detached form of the property I consider that such a detail would be appropriate in this case. The lack of any set back therefore in conjunction with the contrasting roof form would result in imbalance to the pair and cause significant harm to their architectural integrity and appearance and thereby the character and appearance of the wider street scene.

For the foregoing reasons, to allow the proposal would be contrary to objectives of Policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Site 2015-2034 (Adopted 25 April 2019), Policies H4 and D4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies (Adopted 22 March 2023), Policy Eh-H7 of the adopted version of [site address] Neighbourhood Plan, the guidance set out within the [name] and [name] 2018, the National Planning Policy Framework and National Design Guide as they relate, along with other things to the quality of development.

I note the design largely meets the objectives of Local Plan Policies, space for on-site parking would be retained, sufficient space would be maintained for disabled access to the rear of the property, and there would be no adverse impact on residential living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, the absence of harm is a neutral factor in my considerations and, as such, I have given these matters very little weight in my decision.

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