Appeal 3348719

The appeal is dismissed.

At the appeal stage, the appellant has offered to make changes to the scheme, but I am required to determine the appeal on the basis of the plans before me and as determined by the Council.

The appellant has also referred to an earlier permission granted by the Council in 2019 under its Ref. 19/07315/FUL but my understanding is that permission would have now expired. Furthermore, my decision is necessarily based on the planning merits of the scheme before me.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling an on the local area.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling on the south-east side of [address] with a side return to [address]. It has an attached double garage with a flat roof on the [address] side and a projecting single storey element, also under a flat roof, adjoining the neighbouring property. The land in [address] slopes down from north-east to south-west and as a result the appeal property is particularly prominent in the street scene both because of its position at the ‘top’ of the hill as well as its corner location. Whilst a number of the properties have been extended and altered, the asymmetrical front gables which appear to step down the hill are a predominant and distinctive feature in the street scene.

The proposals would include a first-floor extension above the attached garage with a gable end to [address] and incorporating a front dormer in the cat slide roof. This roof would extend over a first-floor front extension and include an open porch. The existing projecting single storey element would have the addition of a first-floor extension under a pitched roof and gable front.

The proposed extensions would introduce a number of different roof forms and roof slopes that would result in a discordant design solution. The addition of first-floor extension under a pitched roof over the single storey projecting element would not relate well in terms of its scale and proportions with the existing property; its two storey height under a pitched roof, given the relatively narrow width in relation to the height, would appear contrived and out of place with the more generous proportions of the gable fronts and roof slopes of the existing and neighbouring properties.

The introduction of the cat slide roof at the front would be at odds with the design of the existing property with its dominance of front gables and asymmetric roof forms. The large front dormer would also be a discordant feature which would appear out of character with the form of the existing property and the street scene.

The combined effect of all the different elements would be to create a convoluted appearance to the appeal property which would be discordant with and detract from the more regular forms of the surrounding properties, where the asymmetric front gables are a dominant and distinctive feature. In this proposal, the dominance of the front gable with its asymmetric roof form would be significantly reduced by both the first storey extensions.

I therefore conclude that the proposed extensions would harm the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. This would conflict with Policies CP9, DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted 2019) and the Householder Planning and [name] (adopted

as well as the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular Section 12, all of which, amongst other matters, seek a high quality of design which respects the local context.

I have noted the family related reasons for seeking to extend the property as well as the objective to remove the flat roof elements because of water penetration. However, there is no information before me to suggest that these objectives could not be met with an extension more in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to override this finding. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including in representations, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.