Appeal 3348309

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site comprises [site address] , a 2-storey detached dwelling located on [site address] in Brinkworth, which is part of a group of 5 dwellings which were granted planning permission in 2021. [name] as a whole has experienced organic development with some variation in the architectural style and scale of dwellings, these 5 particular dwellings are especially large in terms of their size and scale in their local context.

[site address] is set forward from [address] by several metres, and as it sits higher than the adjacent highway, the dwelling has a prominent presence in the street scene. It side (western) element incorporates a subservient ridge, which presently serves to add interest to the street scene. The proposed development would raise the single-storey western element by an additional 2 storeys. This would include extending the roof by some margin across the right-hand side of the front elevation of [site address] .

As such, the extended roof would lack subservience with the remainder of the dwelling. This would be clearly noticeable in the street scene, given [site address] ’s siting in relation to [address]. This would be contrary to [name] of the [name] (adopted 2024), which provides that, amongst other things, proposed extensions and alterations should not dominate the existing building: in other words they should be subservient and appear as additions in a ‘supporting’ role. Moreover, the resulting increased bulk and massing of [site address] would mean that [site address] would appear overly-large in its context, and its distinctive western element (referred to above), would be lost.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with parts iii. and vi. of Core Policy 57 of the [name] (adopted 2015) which provide that, amongst other things, applications for new development must demonstrate how the proposal will make a positive contribution to the character of Wiltshire through responding positively to the existing townscape features in terms of built form, height, mass, and scale, to effectively integrate the building into its setting, and making efficient use of land whilst taking account of the characteristics of the site and the local context to deliver an appropriate development which relates effectively to the immediate setting and to the wider character of the area.

The proposed development would also conflict with paragraph 135 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities).

As the impacts of the proposed development would be localised to [site address] , the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the wider landscape. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development. The appellant has attempted to negotiate with the Council, resulting in the revised scheme before me. However, in planning terms this is also a neutral matter. The proposed development would provide enhanced living conditions for the occupiers of [site address] , but as the benefits in this regard would be mainly private in nature, they attract little weight in support of the proposed development.

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.