Appeal 3347615

The appeal is dismissed.

It is clear from the Council’s decision that its sole objection relates to the rear first floor sun canopy extension. I have no evidence before me to reach a contrary view to the Council in this regard and therefore the consideration of this appeal focuses on the effect of the rear first floor sun canopy extension.

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

Newlands is a 2-storey detached dwelling with an attractive and mostly uncluttered rear elevation which is visually in-keeping with the nearby dwellings within the residential area of which it forms a part.

The proposed sun canopy extension would extend across the full-width of the rear elevation of the main part of Newlands. It would extend outwards from the rear of Newlands by some margin, covering the existing raised patio. It would be supported by tall steel columns. Due to its large scale and prominent placement at first-floor level, the canopy would appear as a disproportionately large and unduly imposing structure on the rear elevation of Newlands. As such, it would not appear as an harmonious addition to Newlands.

Due to its proposed placement to the rear of Newlands, it would be unseen in the street scene from the front of Newlands. Nevertheless, I observed that it would be visible from the nearby Public Right of Way found beyond the rear of the site. In any event, its limited visibility from public vantage points would not diminish the harm that the proposed development would cause to the character and appearance of Newlands itself.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling. It would conflict with part iii. of Core Policy 57 of the [name] (adopted

which provides that applications for new development must be accompanied by appropriate information to demonstrate how the proposal will make a positive contribution to the character of Wiltshire through responding positively to the existing townscape and landscape features in terms of building layouts, built form, height, mass, scale, building line, plot size, elevational design, materials, streetscape and rooflines to effectively integrate the building into its setting.

The proposed development would also conflict with paragraph 135 b) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture.

I acknowledge the desire to improve the liveability and environmental impact of Newlands, but it has not been demonstrated that a less harmful scheme could not achieve the same aims. Moreover, as the benefits of the proposed development would be largely private in nature, they merit little weight in favour or it.

Overall, none of the other considerations material to the proposed development indicate that this appeal decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.