Appeal 3336297

The appeal is dismissed.

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

[site address] is a detached dormer bungalow situated on the south-western side of [address] on a corner plot. It has a single storey garage. To its north west is no.51 which is a detached chalet bungalow. To its south east is no.47 which is also a bungalow and this is separated from the appeal site by a road which has bollards across it to prevent vehicles using it as a through route. It is used by pedestrians and cyclists.

The appeal bungalow is small but is in a reasonably generous plot. It sits about 2.5m from the common boundary with no.[address] and has an in and out access/egress and has room for on-site parking at the front.

The area is residential with [address] being a private road. The dwellings are detached bungalows and detached two storey houses predominantly. Some have been extended and improved and some rebuilt.

The proposed development would substantially remodel the bungalow by, amongst other things, extending it with two gables at the front and extending the roof. The ridge height would be the same as that of the existing bungalow and the first floor area would be increased over the existing building and extensions with the eaves raised by about 1.5m. It would have a large crown roof. The resulting dwelling would appear markedly different than at present.

Whilst the design has sought to keep the eaves at a level broadly in keeping with the eaves of the bungalows on either side of the appeal site, the result is a building with awkwardly long roof slopes on the outer elements at the front, with a bulkier roof form to the rear. The building is bulky as there is a large crown roof and two traditional gables at the rear. The flanks would be deep and the south eastern flank would be reasonably well exposed to public views.

Given the resulting footprint, depth, design to the front and exposed flank and the large crown roof, the proposed development would be discordant in the streetscene. It would be over dominant, particularly given the cluster of bungalows in the immediate area. It would unduly draw the eye and unduly interfere with the rhythm of dwellings along the south west side of [address].

I have borne in mind that some more efficient use of the plot could be made and that the existing dwelling appears somewhat disjointed and incoherent. Those factors are not sufficiently weighty to lead me to grant permission. I have also had regard to other development that has taken place in the area and other planning permissions granted, however, I have determined this proposal on its own individual merits in the particular location proposed. 10.I conclude that the proposed development would unduly harm the character and appearance of the streetscene and would be contrary to policies DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted 2019) and the Householder Planning and Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2020).