Appeal 3337565

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was made retrospectively after the proposed works had commenced. I saw during my visit that the works were substantially complete.

The main issues are the effects of the development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area, including the Chippenham Conservation Area, and upon the living conditions at [address], with particular regard to visual impact and light.

The appeal property is a mid-terraced, two-storey dwelling within a residential street of similar properties on the edge of the Chippenham Conservation Area (CA). The front, stone faced elevation of the dwelling with ornate stone window and door surrounds is a feature of these terraced properties and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the wider CA. The rear elevations of the dwellings to this side of [address] are tightly contained by the rear garden settings of the properties and are out of sight from the public domain, backing onto what appeared to be a former industrial site beyond the boundary of the CA.

Plans which accompanied the application showed an original single-storey projection across half the width of the property and mirrored at No 35, with a more shallow ‘[name] the original void adjacent to No 33. No 33 has a similar layout that is mirrored at No 32, which is a pattern that appeared to be repeated as part of the original terrace. The development undertaken has replaced the original single-storey projection with an equivalent 4.6m deep, flat-roof addition across the full width of the property.

The extension is unashamedly contemporary in design, finished with composite black cladding. As a single-storey addition I find the development to be appropriate in terms of scale and bulk relative to the dwelling, with well-proportioned window and door openings. In my assessment, the appearance of the extension marks it as a distinct addition to the more traditional form of the original dwelling in a positive way and aligns with the Council’s broad support for varied approaches and contemporary additions to properties in this location, as is clearly stated within the officer’s report.

The rear elevation of the terrace is not overly sensitive to change, and the extension’s position within its enclosed back-garden is not seen within its wider context. I am not persuaded that the choice of dark coloured materials detracts from its quality or contributes to an extension overall that is out of keeping or visually unappealing. For this reason, I am satisfied that the extension is neither harmful to the character or appearance of the appeal property or to the wider area. As such, I find no conflict with criterion (iii) of Policy CP57 of the [name] 2015 (WCS) as far as it relates to quality of design and respect for the existing townscape. For the same reason I am satisfied that there is no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) objectives for achieving well-designed and beautiful places in terms of the quality of the building. Based on these findings it follows that the area’s significance as a designated heritage asset is unaffected. This reflects the Council’s own findings on this particular matter.

No 33 is unextended to the rear nearest to the appeal property. There is an approximately 1.8m high timber panel fence along the common side boundary between both properties. According to the plans which accompanied the application, the extension exceeds the depth of the canopy which previously occupied the space to the rear of No 34 adjacent to No 33. The appellants’ assertions within their appeal submissions that the new building is exactly the same area as the original kitchen and original lean-to are not supported by any substantive evidence or by the plans which accompanied the original planning application.

The extension projects 4.6m beyond the immediately adjacent rear wall of No 33, which includes a window to existing living space, and far exceeds the height of the existing fence. It is obviously visible from No 33 above the typical and conventional residential garden enclosure, as was apparent to me during my site visit, and as is shown on the planning application drawings. In my assessment, due to a combination of its depth, height and proximity to the boundary, the extension has imposed itself at extremely close quarters upon the outlook from the neighbouring ground floor living space, and from the immediately adjacent rear garden space at No 33, as a visually dominant and intrusive addition. Based upon the information before me, this has noticeably altered the arrangement which existed prior to the extension being constructed and, in my assessment, has significantly and unacceptably contributed to an increased degree of enclosure to the rear of this neighbouring property.

I am not persuaded by any substantive evidence that levels of natural light to the neighbour’s internal living space has been significantly affected. However, this does not diminish the level of visual harm that I have identified, which is contrary to WCS Policy CP57 part (vii) as far as it relates to the impact of development upon the amenities of existing occupants. By failing to create a high standard of amenity for existing users of No 33, in this context there is conflict with the Framework’s objectives for achieving well-designed and beautiful places.

Notwithstanding my findings on the first main issue, for the reasons given, I find that the extension has harmed the living conditions at [address]. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.