Appeal 3336078

The appeal is dismissed.

The amendments of the National Planning Policy Framework were published in December 2023 after the determination of the appeal application. These amendments do not alter the basis upon which this appeal has been assessed.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene.

The appeal property is a 2-storey detached dwelling forming part of a linear form of residential development fronting [address]. The streetscene is characterised by primarily detached dwellings of varying designs which are set back varying distances from the carriageway to the rear of the footways and grassed areas. The streetscene has a spacious character and appearance.

The proposed development includes the erection of a first floor front extension which would be located above a single storey garage. By reason of its scale, the proposed extension would not be a disproportionate addition to the property. Further, from the road the extension would be seen against the context of either the property or [address] which is sited further forward. The scale and siting of the appeal scheme would not cause the resulting property to be an unduly prominent feature within the spacious character and appearance of the streetscene.

However, when viewed from the road the proposed extension would be poorly related to the design and roof form of the property. The proposed extension would not be integrated with the overall roofscape of the property. The proposed crown roof form of the extension would fail to respect the hipped roof form of the property. Further, because of the valley gutter between the proposed extension and existing front gable feature, the appeal scheme would have the appearance of an unrelated addition.

Reference has been made by the appellants,. to other crown roof forms at 232 and [address] which were observed during the site visit. However, these other schemes are indicated in the evidence to comprise the redevelopment of these plots rather than involving front extensions to existing dwellings. Accordingly, these other schemes are given limited weight in the determination of this appeal.

Although the scale of the resulting property would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene, this matter is outweighed by the proposed extension not being of the necessary high standard of design compatible with the architectural style and roof form of the host property as required by Policies 69 and 72 of the [site address] District Local Plan Review (LP).

Accordingly, and for the reasons given, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed because the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and, as such it would conflict with [name] 69 and 72.