Appeal 3343322

The appeal is dismissed.

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

[site address] consists predominantly of detached residential properties set within generous plots situated on the same side of the road. The dwellings are normally positioned well back from the highway, an arrangement which results in a generally consistent building line. Due to the local topography the properties sit at a substantially lower ground level than the road, which affords views into the deep front gardens. Taken together, these factors provide a sense of spaciousness to the street scene.

[site address] is a detached bungalow featuring a front gable. It is in a large plot, with a deep open frontage which contains generous soft landscaping.

The proposed outbuilding would be located within the frontage of the appeal property. While it would be subservient to the host bungalow, due to its overall size and scale, the proposed development would harm the open texture of the property’s frontage. Furthermore, due to its siting forward of the existing house, the outbuilding would appear highly conspicuous in its receiving context. The local topography, whereby the site is at a substantially lower ground level than the [site address] , would increase the proposal’s incongruity within the street scene. Consequently, the proposal would be harmful to the spacious character of the locale.

My attention is drawn to a garden room sited within the frontage of [address]. However, as this is located near the plot’s front boundary, views towards this structure are more limited due to the local topography. The proposal, on the contrary, would be positioned on a more exposed location, close to the host bungalow. As such, I do not find that this neighbouring development would justify the proposal. With regard to the extension at this property and detached bungalow at Melrose, these are different types of development to that before me. As such, these other developments would not be directly comparable with the appeal scheme.

In light of the above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and of the area. It would conflict with Policy DM2 of the [site address] [name] and Development Management Development Plan Document 2012 (the CS), which supports development of high-quality design that provides an attractive built environment with a sense of place.

The Council’s reason for refusal quotes CS Policy DM11. This policy concerns the historic and built environment and my attention has been drawn to the [site address] Conservation Area (CA). The plan before me shows that the site is located outside the CA. The Council has not set out any reasons to justify the proposal’s harm to the CA. As such, I do not find this policy to be relevant in the context of this appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.