Appeal 3332478

The appeal is dismissed.

The effect on the character and appearance of the area

The host property is a 1970’s built house of a simple rectangular form, with a roof pitched between two storey side gables. There is a single storey element to one end. This currently accommodates the garage and utility room and wraps around the front of the dwelling to provide its porch and extended entrance hall. It is proposed to widen the main two-storey part of the house across the plot, keeping to the other dimensions and building over the single storey element and almost up to the boundary with the neighbouring house at No. 23.

Whilst a reasonably modest extension, it would bring the two storey gable close to the side of No. 23. The roof to this neighbouring house pitches to the sides, with its gable ends front and rear within the plot. There is further such variety to the design of housing along [address], including a mixture of one and two storey dwellings, although scale and siting are quite consistent. The dwellings are in the main quite evenly and closely spaced. This proposal would bring adjacent houses at Nos. 21 and 23 much closer together than is generally the case along this street.

The scheme would erode the presently quite consistent degree of built separation along this residential street, which currently preserves a degree of openness that contributes positively to its present character. The proposal would therefore conflict with design Policy WLP8.29 of the Waveney Local Plan1 1 East Suffolk Council – Waveney Local Plan covering the former Waveney Local Planning Authority area. Adopted 20 March 2019. in failing to respond to local context in respect of the spatial relationship between buildings prevailing in the wider street scene.

The appellant relies on recent approvals for side extensions in the vicinity, which have similarly led to closer gaps between adjacent houses. Both 38 and [address] have been extended at the side, although this reflects a close juxtaposition already existing at Nos. 42 and 44. Just around the corner to these, the houses at 2 and 5 The Glade, and at [address], have had two storey side extensions allowed by the Council. However, these five dwellings all occupy an area with a greater commonality of house size and design. This does not reflect quite the same varied built character as [address], where a sloping street and mixture of two and single storey dwellings provide a somewhat more open character.

Closer by, the two storey extension to the house at [address] abuts the pitched roof of a large neighbouring bungalow that extends deeply into the plot. As with the previous examples, the visual circumstances and building relationships are far from being exactly similar to this proposal. These differences thus provide no compelling reason for me to determine this case other than on its individual merits and in relation to the specific circumstances within [address].

I have accounted for the proposal meeting the accommodation needs of a growing family, without the higher costs of moving home. However, this would not outweigh the harm found to the character and appearance of the area.

That the appeal be dismissed.