Appeal 3336799

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: - • the character and appearance of the dwelling and the street scene; • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

The development plan includes policy ENV1 (A.1, B.1, B.3 and B.14) in the East Riding Local Plan 2012-2029 (LP) (adopted 2016) which seeks to ensure that proposals achieve a high quality of design. The more recent National Planning Policy Framework has a similar objective.

The appeal site is located within a suburban residential area. It occupies a prominent corner position facing [address], a busy main road with dwellings of various ages, sizes and styles. It has a side boundary to Cavendish Park, a modern housing estate of mainly detached dwellings. Although set back significantly from [address], the dwelling can be clearly seen from there. It is a large detached three storey house which has been significantly extended over the years. Although the appellant considers that there is no element of consistency in any visual element at the front of the property, when seen from [address] its front elevation could be said to have a ‘farmhouse’ style with its small cottage style windows, small gabled dormers and steeply gabled porch. A large carport with dormers above is clad in dark horizontal boarding giving it a barn-like character. When seen from Cavendish Park, the different elements of the dwelling give it a somewhat complicated side elevation.

The proposal would replace the existing small dormers in the main roof with an excessively wide dormer that would have glazing across its width and would occupy most of that roof. Its shallow, catslide roof would introduce another style of roof to the dwelling which already has a variety of roof forms. This would be further complicated by the addition of an extension above the existing porch that would have a flat roof at second floor level. [name] have no objection to the proposed black timber cladding at first floor level that would reflect the car port, this extension is an unusually dominant element by reason of its height and siting in the centre of the front elevation and I saw no other examples of similar three storey front projections in the area. An existing first floor window would be replaced with two smaller windows.

The resulting front elevation would be overly complicated with too many different, competing elements and a ‘top heavy’ appearance. It would lack cohesion and would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling. Whilst there is a variety of different styles of dwelling in the area, in general each one reflects a particular style. By reason of its incompatible roof forms, the excessive width of the dormer and the height and siting of the porch extension, the proposal would not reflect the existing style of this dwelling or its neighbours and that would significantly harm the character and appearance of the dwelling and the street scene, contrary to policy ENV1.

The proposal would overlook the rear of two semi-detached dwellings at 46 and [address] on the opposite side of Cavendish Park which both have small rear gardens some 17m from the proposed development. Both properties are currently overlooked by the existing dormer windows in two separate bedrooms at second floor level of the dwelling. The two separate bedrooms would be replaced by a master bedroom suite in this proposal. Although that room would have extensive glazing in three elevations and opening glazed doors, the impact on those dwellings would not be significantly greater than at present and possibly less because the number of occupiers using that floor would be likely to be fewer.

It would also overlook a property to the east at [address] on the opposite side of Cavendish Park, some 12-14m away. However, the areas of that property affected would be the front garden and drive. As such, any loss of privacy or perception of overlooking would be limited.

I conclude, therefore, that the proposal would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and the proposal would accord in this regard with LP policy ENV1 (B.4) which requires that proposals have regard to the amenity of existing properties.

For the reasons given above and despite my findings in regard to living conditions, I conclude that my findings in regard to character and appearance are significant and overriding. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. The appeal should be dismissed.