Appeal 3341962

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is a single storey bungalow adjacent and to the rear of Milbourne Park, a housing estate comprising mainly bungalows close to the appeal site and surrounded by countryside. The property fronts onto a lane that other houses within the estate back onto. Other housing further along the lane, away from the housing estate and the appeal site, is sporadic and set back from the lane and consequently have a more rural character. Although the appeal site differs from the estate housing because of its orientation and access, the bungalows on the estate form the immediate backdrop to it and thus define the character around it.

One side of the appeal property has a front projecting section with a hipped roof that extends below the main roof and contains the kitchen. It is joined to a flat roofed section above the front door and hallway. On the other side a hipped roof extension projects forward of the main house at an angle. It is the same height as the main roof and has a flat roofed dormer serving a first floor home office. Along the side of the house a close board wooden fence separates it from the main garden area to the side which contains outbuildings, some of which would be removed to make way for the proposed extension.

The proposed development would extend to the side of the kitchen and then project forward of it and the existing side extension. It would form a side wing which would be higher than the main roof and contain dormer windows at the rear and sides. It would dominate, and fail to integrate with, the host property because of its difference in height and depth. It would also lengthen the frontage such that it would appear substantially larger and out of character with other bungalow development in the adjacent estate. In combination with the existing extension, it would result in overdevelopment that would subsume the original bungalow and thus harm its character and appearance. The proposal would therefore conflict with the relevant criteria of Core Policy 57 of the [name] (2015) and section 12 and paragraphs 124 and 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) which seek high quality design that maintains local character.

The appellant has referred to amended drawings which were sent to the Council but were not assessed as part of the application. Extracts of the drawings were included in the appellant’s statement of case, but no detailed plans submitted for my consideration. I have therefore based my decision on the planning merits and impacts of the proposed development as submitted and I have reached my decision on that basis. Issues relating to the processing of the planning application must remain a matter between the main parties.

I understand that the proposed development would provide benefits in terms of meeting the needs of the appellant’s family. However, no evidence has been provided to me that such needs could not be met by an alternative and less harmful design.

The appellant has provided examples of other larger houses within the local area. However, they do not contribute to the street scene of which the appeal site is part. As noted above, that is provided by housing on Milbourne Park to the rear and side of the appeal site which share common characteristics in terms of plot size, density, type and scale of development and are therefore more relevant to an assessment of the impact of the proposal.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.