Appeal 3340485

The appeal is dismissed

The Appellant offers to reduce the width of the proposed roof terrace if required and to erect 1.8m privacy screening; but this appeal must be determined on the detailed design as submitted to and refused by the Council.

The main issues are the effects of the proposed extension and roof terrace on the character and appearance of [site address] and the neighbouring area and on the privacy of nearby properties within the Close.

No [site address] already has a ground floor front porch extension across the full width of the terraced dwelling. This is larger than any other front extension in the Close and, in my view, looks incongruous. Be that as it may, the existing extension has planning approval under a previous application.

However, I consider that adding a first-floor roof terrace over the present extension, with new access doors and waist-high, glazed parapets, would make the development even more prominent, such that it would become unacceptably out of keeping with the appearance and character of the existing house and the Close as a whole. Moreover, the use of the terrace by occupiers would further add to the change in character of the property.

Furthermore, those using the terrace would have an open view towards several other of the surrounding terraced properties, albeit limited to their frontages. I agree with the Council that potentially Nos 3 and 4, to the south, and Nos 7 and 8, opposite to the west, would be worst affected in this respect.

I accept that there would be no adverse impact on the rear of neighbouring properties and also that [address] exhibits no special architectural merit demanding protection. However, I consider that the adverse planning impact with respect to character and appearance alone warrants dismissing the appeal, whilst the potential overlooking adds to the case against the proposal.

I note the submission of the Appellant that the terrace is being sought as a means of providing alternative private amenity space to the dwelling and that the existing rear amenity space is in almost constant shadow due to the presence of a large mature tree on public land directly to the south. From inspection, it does not seem to me that this effect is likely to be especially severe, although the preference for an open front terrace is understandable, In any event, this consideration is substantially outweighed by the strong planning objections I have identified.

For the reasons explained above, the proposed development would be contrary to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan and supporting guidance which, consistent with national policy, require development to respect local visual amenity and to contribute positively by good design to the appearance and use of streets and public spaces.

I am thus led to the conclusion that this appeal should be dismissed.