Appeal 3340454

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property sits at the end of a row of homes within a rural location at the edge of the village of Langford.

The proposed part one storey /part two storey extension to this modest semi-detached house would be overly wide. It would span the full width of the existing rear elevation of the host dwelling and project beyond the side elevation. It would also be overly deep, projecting a good distance beyond the rear elevation of the appellant’s home. As such, this large extension would be unacceptably bulky and would dominate the existing house.

In addition, the proposed side extension element would give rise to an awkward roof junction. This would be at odds with the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

I recognise that the proposed extension would be a similar depth to the existing rear projection that would be demolished. However, that structure is single storey and much narrower than the proposed scheme. As such, it is significantly less bulky than the appeal proposal would be.

The proposed extension would be clearly visible from the rear garden of adjoining property, No [address] and surrounding agricultural land. At the time of my visit summer vegetation screened the property when viewed approaching the village on [address] Cottages. However, in winter months when the vegetation is less dense, there would be views of this incongruous extension when passing along this highway.

Taking all of the above into account, the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. It therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policies OS2, OS4 and H6 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (2018), the [name] (2016) and the National Planning Policy Framework. Taken together, these require high quality development which is proportionate in scale to the host dwellings and respects the rural character of the area.

I have considered a number of matters submitted by the appellant in support of the proposed development. I recognise the desire to upgrade the dwelling to secure modern living space. However, this could be achieved in a more sympathetic manner.

I acknowledge that the proposal would safeguard a side access route to the appellant’s rear garden. I also note that materials would match the existing house.

Other properties in the row have been extended over the years. The extensions that I had sight of on my site visit, including the adjoining property, appear to better respond to the scale and design of the host dwellings than the appeal proposal would. In any event, each proposal must be considered on its own merits.

None of the matters raise outweigh the harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.