Appeal 3335697

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council changed the description of development from that stated on the application form. In the interests of clarity, I consider that the amended description accurately describes the appeal scheme and accordingly I have adopted an amended description in the heading above.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of host property and area in general.

The site is within a predominantly residential area, characterised by properties of varying design and style. The appeal property is a modest bungalow situated on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address].

[address] comprises a variation of built form, houses, and bungalows. There is little harmony in the [address] streetscene in terms of design. [address] comprises mostly bungalows. Whilst bungalow roof design varies in the area, the built form is characteristically modest, and dormer extensions are in general small scale within the immediate area.

The proposed mass of the hip to gable extension along with the dormers are uncharacteristic in comparison to other bungalows within the area. I find that the scale and design of the proposed development would be incongruous to the host property and appears as bulky features in the surrounding area due to the prominent corner position of the appeal property.

The proposed single storey front extension would integrate into the existing property and surrounding area. Notwithstanding this I find that the hip to gable extensions with dormers would harm the character and appearance of host property and area in general.

There is conflict with Policy PNP4 of the [site address] and Nether Poppleton Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036 and Policy D11 of the City of York Local Plan Publication Draft (February 2018) which amongst other things seeks to ensure developments are of high-quality design which respect and complement the site and local area.

The proposed development would be contrary to City of York Council ‘[name] and Alterations’ Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which seeks amongst other things for extensions to be subservient and that dormers should not be unduly prominent.

There is conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) which seeks amongst other things to ensure developments are of good design.

The Appellant has raised procedural concerns relating to the determination of the application in relation to the officer recommendation and the ultimate decision. [name] sympathise with the Appellant, this is beyond the remit of this appeal and does not influence my findings.

The Appellant contends that an alternative, less aesthetically pleasing development could be implemented as permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). Whilst this maybe the case I have not been provided with substantive evidence to assess the potential fallback position against the proposal before me.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.