Appeal 3332429

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant draws my attention to what is described as a “campaign against the development.” However, there is no evidence before me of any impropriety and whilst the proposal the subject of this appeal attracted a large number of objections, I note that consultation purposefully provides for people to engage with the planning process.

The appellant states that the Council has acted inconsistently and has not sufficiently assessed or considered the proposal the subject of this appeal. Whilst this is a matter between the appellant and the Council, I note that the Council’s officer’s report sets out a clear and succinct assessment and that the Council’s planning decision was based on identified conflict with the adopted policies of the development plan.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling situated in a prominent corner location along [address] at its junction with [address]. The dwelling has a projecting porch to the front, an attached garage to the side and a single storey extension to the rear.

The surrounding area is characterised by the presence of similar two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings set back from the road behind parking areas and/or small front garden areas. Dwellings have larger gardens to the rear and glimpses through to these, together with the set-back from the road and gaps between dwellings and pairs of dwellings, provide for a sense of spaciousness.

Further to the above, the presence of similar hip roofs, front gables, bays and brick and tile materials provides for a satisfying sense of rhythm and uniformity in the area surrounding the appeal site. Further, whilst I noted during my site visit that pairs of semi-detached houses in the area tend to differ slightly from one another, due to extensions and alterations, such differences tend to be subtle. As a consequence of this, pairs of dwellings retain a strong sense of symmetry, to the benefit of the area’s uniform qualities.

During my site visit, I observed that the appeal property and the property on the opposite side of [address], Number [address], are both located on relatively generous plots, with garden land to the side. Consequently, Nos 43 and 45 together provide for a spacious gateway into [address] from [address]. They also provide for a considerable sense of space and greenery as one heads towards [address] from [address] itself. In this regard, the appeal site makes a significant positive contribution to local character.

The proposal would extend the existing dwelling across much of the width of its plot and in more than doubling the overall width of the host dwelling, I find that it would largely eliminate the green and spacious attributes of this side of the entrance to [address]. This would also lead the proposed development to appear to jar awkwardly with the more open and spacious characteristics of No 45 opposite, to the detriment of the area’s rhythmic qualities. 10.Further to the above, the proposal’s overall scale, bulk and massing would result in it failing to appear as a subservient extension. Rather, I consider that the totality of the development proposed would combine to overwhelm and to some degree, subsume the appearance of the host property. Furthermore, it would result in a dwelling that would appear unlike any other house in the area, to the detriment of the area’s uniform qualities. 11.The harm arising from the proposal’s incongruous appearance would be exacerbated as a result of the dwelling’s prominent location, whereby the proposed development would appear visually dominant and would draw attention to itself as an alien feature, out of keeping with its surroundings. 12.I also find that additional harm would arise as a consequence of the proposed development leading the appeal property to appear entirely out of proportion with its adjoining neighbour. This would severely unbalance the sense of symmetry between these attached dwellings. 13.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy P15 of the Solihull Local Plan (2013); and 2 to the [address] Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.