Appeal 3349696

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Policy DH1 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 (2020) (LP) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the framework’) seek to secure high quality development which responds to local context and character.

The part of [address] in which the appeal property is located is characterised by small groups of modest terraced homes which face onto a central green area of public open space. The properties are uniform in appearance and include a simple pitched roof design. The appeal property occupies a prominent end-of-terrace position.

The proposed two-storey extension would span a good proportion of the rear elevation of the appellant’s home and would also wrap around part of the side elevation. This would give rise to an overly large extension in comparison to the host property. Whilst the pitched roof on the side element of the extension would reflect the roof design of the existing dwelling, and other nearby homes, the double hipped roof on the rear element would not. Consequently, it would be a complicated and incongruous roof form. In addition, the proposed small windows would have a vertical emphasis so would fail to reflect the good-sized windows, with horizontal emphasis, found on the host dwelling, which are common to the properties on [address]. Taking all of this into account, the proposed extension would appear overly prominent and at odds with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.

In conclusion, the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. Accordingly, it would not constitute high quality development. The proposal would therefore be contrary to LP Policy DH1 and Section 12 of the framework.

I have considered a number of matters submitted by the appellant in support of the proposals. I note that the appellant states that, given site constraints, there is limited scope for development which falls under permitted development rights. Also, several previous planning applications at the site have not been successful and therefore the Council’s concerns regarding those schemes have informed the current proposals.

The appellant states that the dining area at ground floor level and a first-floor bedroom annotated as bedroom 3 on the submitted plans could be constructed under permitted development rights. However, limited detail has been given and no evidence has been provided in support of this statement. Therefore, I afford this matter limited weight in considering the appeal.

The appellant considers that the Council has been unclear about what, if any, development would be acceptable at this site. This advice would usually be secured through the planning pre-application process and falls outside the scope of this appeal.

None of these matters outweigh the harm that I have identified.

For the reasons given above, and taking all the matters raised into account, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.