Appeal 3337200

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, in [name] of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, a different wording has been entered. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.

The area is residential, characterised by two-storey modern brick faced dwellings in a uniform arrangement. The host dwelling is semi-detached property with a prominent gable to both the front and back elevations. The majority of the garden space is provided to the side of the dwelling with a large separation distance to the property to the south. It backs onto the [name] with the pair of semis clearly visible from the tow path and adjacent street to the rear.

The proposal would utilise matching materials and design features. It would be set back substantially from the front elevation and down marginally from the ridge line. However, it would be significant in scale and would double the width of the host dwelling. When viewed from the surrounding streets and tow path, it would be a dominant addition to the property and despite the setbacks would unbalance the existing pair of semis with the addition of a third gable. Moreover, although sufficient garden space would be maintained to the south, the gap between Nos 4 and 6 would be significantly reduced, disrupting the uniform rhythm of development along the street.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. It would conflict with [name]/1 and H/17 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 1991-2006 (January

and Policy CS2 of the Charnwood Local Plan 2011-2028 [name] (November 2015) where amongst other things they require development to be of high-quality design that respects and enhances the local environment and does not appear as an incongruous feature.

The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) where it requires development to be attractive as a result of good architecture and sympathetic to local character.

My attention has been drawn to an extant permission1 at the appeal site for a single storey side extension with the same footprint as the appeal proposal. I am satisfied that if the appeal proposal were dismissed, there is a reasonable prospect that such a fallback position would be implemented. Nevertheless, the appeal proposal is for a two-storey side extension with substantially greater height and bulk than the extant permission. As such, I find that the fallback position would be less harmful than the appeal proposal before me and so in this case does not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.