Appeal 3341868

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of both the streetscene and the existing dwelling.

The appeal property is a detached two-storey dwelling, which is situated in a small residential development within the village. The properties share similar characteristics in terms of their size, external materials and appearance. In addition, a number of the dwellings have front facing projecting elements including two-storey gables and single-storey garages.

The appeal proposal contains two elements. A first-floor extension is proposed above the existing single-storey garage. The plans show a gym on the ground floor with a bedroom and en-suite/bathroom areas above. The extension would be built above the full length of the existing garage. The second element is a single-storey side extension with a flat sedum covered roof. This extension would provide boot room and utility areas.

The Council considers that the first-floor extension would harmful to the character and appearance of both the dwelling and the streetscene, because of its size and position. Furthermore, although the single-storey extension is not referred to in the Council’s decision notice, I note that the officer’s report considers that element would ‘unbalance’ the appearance of the front of the property and that its modern design would be out of keeping.

In reaching my decision, I have considered Policy 8 of the [name] 2016, which states (amongst other things) that development should respond to the site’s context and local character. In addition, I have also taken into account the content of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document – [name] 2020. This advises that front extensions should normally only be single-storey and that a two-storey front extension will only be acceptable if it relates to detached properties in large grounds.

I have given weight to the appellant’s arguments in respect of there being two-storey gables on the front of other dwellings on [address]. In addition, I observed at my site visit that the proposed extensions would be screened when entering [address] by existing trees and other vegetation.

However, the scale and bulk of the proposed first-floor extension would be a dominant and overly large addition, that would be out of keeping and at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of both the streetscene and the existing dwelling. The extent of the projection at first-floor level would be greater than the projecting gables on other dwellings along [address] and it would be a discordant feature in the streetscene.

Regarding the single-storey side extension, I am not persuaded by the Council’s concerns. Although, it would contrast with the existing dwelling in terms of its external materials and its flat roof, it would be a relatively discreet and subordinate addition.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the provisions of the Council’s Core Strategy and with the advice contained in its Supplementary Planning Document. It would also conflict with the provisions of paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023, which (amongst other things) seeks to ensure that new development adds quality to the area, is visually attractive and is sympathetic to local character.

For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be dismissed.