Appeal 3344970

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development includes reference to a balcony. During the application process a balcony proposed at the front of the property was removed from the proposal. Therefore, my assessment of this appeal relates to the two storey side extension and carport.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area including the Dartmoor National Park.

The property is situated, along with other houses, outside of the village of Chagford within the Dartmoor National Park (DNP). The property, a modest bungalow with accommodation in the roof, is sited at an angle to the road with a large front garden. Views from the road directly in front are screened to some degree by mature trees and hedges.

The proposed two storey extension would be to the side of the property adding a gable with higher eaves and ridge lines than the existing house. The proposal therefore changes the balance of the property with the extension becoming the prominent feature. Although the pitch of the gables are the same, the height difference makes the building appear unbalanced and this effect is exacerbated by the large windows.

Policy 3.7 of the Dartmoor Local Plan 2018-2035 requires residential extensions to be subservient to the original dwelling and conserve or enhance its character. The proposed extension would be taller than the original house. It would dominate the property rather than being subservient to it, having a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the property. Whilst other properties in the area may be larger and taller it is unclear the policy context when these were built. The suggested rendered and glazing elevational treatment would not overcome the landscape harm arising from the scale of the proposed extension.

There are examples of other gable fronted properties in the area, however, none of these are particularly similar form to the appeal property. Although the increase in habitable floor space is within the 30% limitation as suggested in policy 3.7 this policy requires that extensions are subservient in size when compared to the original property. This will not be achieved in this instance.

The property is visible, particularly the side to be extended, in views up [address] and from neighbouring properties. Therefore, the prominence of the extension would have an impact on views in the locality. Whilst views from further away such as from [address] and [address] are more limited due to the mature trees providing some screening.

The appeal site lies within the DNP and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks as these have the highest status of protection. The proposed extension is found to have a harmful impact on the character of the building and the surrounding area and as a result the national park would not be conserved. Although the harm to the DNP would be limited due to the scale of the proposal this still holds significant weight.

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area and would thus conflict with Policies 1.2, 1.5, 2.1 and 3.7 of the Dartmoor Local Plan 2018-2036 (2021) and the Dartmoor National Park Design Guide, which require, amongst other things, that development proposals conserve the national park, be of high quality design, informed by local character and consider the scale and massing of developments.

The proposed extension works would provide additional and improved accommodation for the appellant and their family as well as energy efficiency measures. The height of the ridge being increased due to Building Regulations is also noted. However, these factors do not outweigh the harm that has been identified to the character and appearance of the property and the DNP. I note the appellant’s reference to fire escape routes, but no evidence is before me to demonstrated that such large extension are the only way to address this issue.

Parish Council support is noted but no further justification is provided therefore this holds limited weight.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole, and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework which requires the conservation and enhancement of the natural scenic beauty of National Parks, that outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.