Appeal 3332925

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council refer to the appeal site as a (non-designated) heritage asset, although no local list has been provided. [name] have determined the appeal with full regard to the architectural and historic qualities of the buildings identified.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene, and • surface water flooding.

The appeal site (No.89) is the southernmost of a small group of 3 very similar nineteenth-century two-storey villas (the villa group) each constructed in a combination of cut and coursed local stone with a pantile roof and sliding sash windows to three bays in the principal (front) elevation and a central porticoed entrance. Whitley, despite being a settlement that has been significantly extended to the west, presents the character of a linear settlement with a number of older properties, variously altered and infilled by more recent insertions spread along [address]. In that context the villa group makes a significant contribution to the street scene in that notwithstanding extensions to side and rear they retain an original vernacular classicism which makes a distinctive and rhythmic contribution to the street scene that is not as evident elsewhere in the settlement.

The appellant intends to provide a significant amount of additional accommodation with a new two-storey block that attempts to be seen as visually separated from the host dwelling by a set-back two storey link. Taken together the resulting proposal would double the frontage width of the original dwelling. Although the proposed extension is of lower height, presumably seeking to subordinate what is proposed, this is achieved by the introduction of dormer windows and other architectural components which pay little regard to the built form of the original building and do so in alignment with the main block frontages of the villa group. The effect of the proposal would be to introduce a competing built form which would not be visually subordinate. From absence of architectural simplicity, and by its height, adjacency and aligned positioning, the proposal would dominate the street scene due to its visual incongruity in proximity to the villa group.

The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy 57 of the [name] which seeks that development should provide a positive response to the existing development pattern and built form by the application of high standards of design, and (at iv) have regard to assets of heritage value.

The Council have confirmed that the appeal site is located in [name] 1 which would usually be an appropriate location for development such as is proposed but the appellant complains that the Council have introduced flood risk at a late point in the decision-making process. The alleged flood risk (FR) relates to surface water and seems to be isolated and could likely be addressed by condition. However, even if I were to find in favour of the appellant on this issue, this would not outweigh the conflict with the development plan on the first main issue.

Overall, my reasoning directs that the proposal would not accord with the development plan as a whole and consequently, taking all matters raised into account, the appeal cannot succeed.