Appeal 3339471

The appeal is dismissed.

Revised plans were submitted during the course of the application. The Council made their decision on the basis of the revised plans, and I shall do the same.

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

The application site includes a detached, thatched cottage and a detached garage. It is located on the outskirts of the village in an area which is characterised by loose-knit development, set amongst fields. [site address] is a relatively narrow rural lane with vegetation to both sides. Overall, the area has an attractive, rural character and the appeal property makes a significant contribution to this.

The existing dwelling is partially characterised by its steeply pitched thatched roof. The low ridge and eaves of the catslide roof of the existing rear projection add to this traditional character.

The appeal scheme includes extensions to the side and rear of the existing rear projection. The overall length of the resultant rear wing would significantly exceed that of the main front part of the dwelling. Furthermore, the proposal would increase the width of the existing projection with the rear extension being wider again. At its maximum dimensions the extension would be only slightly narrower than the host dwelling. This would obscure much of the original building when viewed from the rear. Consequently, as a result of their overall width and length the proposed extensions would compete with and detract from the original building. This would be exacerbated by the sideways projecting gable which would create a bulky addition to the rear of the property.

Furthermore, although the overall height of the extensions would not exceed the existing ridge, the proposed eaves on the southwest elevation would sit above those of the parent dwelling. This would result in the loss of the distinctive cat-slide roof and create an awkward, jarring relationship between the main dwelling and the rear projection. In addition, the shallow pitch of the proposed roof, would contrast unacceptably with the steeply pitched roof form of the existing building.

Although the extension would be set back from the road, it would be visible from vantage points on [site address] , especially when the trees are not in leaf. Therefore, the effect of the proposals would be appreciable beyond the boundaries of the appeal site. Overall, the proposed extension would appear as an incongruous and prominent addition to the host dwelling which would detract from its character and appearance.

Other two storey extensions have been allowed by the Council in Shalbourne. Most of the examples put to me involve extensions with eaves which continue or are set below those of the main dwelling and reflect the pitch of the main roof. The extensions which were approved at thatched dwellings, Ropens and [address], had tiled roofs. However, the extensions in both of these cases have appropriately pitched roofs and therefore respond to the proportions of the host dwelling. As such, the appeal scheme is materially different to these examples.

The proposal includes the replacement of the existing garage with one of a similar footprint in approximately the same position. The proposed building would be taller than the existing garage, however the mass would be reduced by half-hipping the roof. The relatively steep pitch of the roof would ensure that the building would not appear overly bulky.

I am therefore satisfied that the proposed garage would be appropriately scaled. Furthermore, given the relatively generous distance between the proposed garage and the host dwelling it would not detract from it. In addition, the proposed garage would be smaller in scale than dwellings in the vicinity and given the degree of separation between buildings in the locality, would not appear overly dominant in this context.

Although the proposed dormer windows would be positioned relatively high on the roof slope, they would be modest in scale and appropriately detailed. Furthermore, they would be set well in from the edges of the roof and would not overwhelm the building or result in a top-heavy appearance.

[name] find that the proposed garage would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area, I conclude that the proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling. The proposal would therefore conflict with Core Policy 57 of the [name] ([name] 2015) which seeks to ensure that development achieves a high standard of design and responds positively to existing features. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to achieve well designed and beautiful places.

The appeal site is located within the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (NL). Although the Council considered that the proposals would not cause harm to the special landscape qualities of the NL, I have a duty under Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area.

The appeal site is located in an area which is characterised by a patchwork of fields and pockets of woodland. The appeal proposals would not extend into the fields surrounding the appeal site and would not be of significant magnitude to result in an adverse effect on the special qualities of the NL. Insofar as the scheme would result in the replacement of an unsightly garage it would further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. However, this is not sufficient justification for allowing harmful development to occur in respect of the effect of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations including the Framework do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.