Appeal 3351171

The appeal is dismissed.

The Main Issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling (No.8) and the street scene.

[address] is a short cul-de-sac providing access to a group of modest cottages arranged in four blocks on its southern side together with associated outbuildings and parking areas on the northern side. No.8 was originally symmetrically paired with No.[address], but has been extended to the side by a single bay1 although each originally presented two windows on upper and ground floors with a central entrance door facing north-west. This pair of dwellings are positioned ‘end on’ to the access road such that the pathway to No.8 lies directly across its neighbour’s front elevation and small fore-garden. No.8 has a garden of similar depth to that of No.7 but much wider and extending additionally on its south-west side.

This arrangement is repeated in the handed pair Nos.9 and [address], where the principal elevations face south-east, with limited separation between their respective rear elevations. Several of the dwellings in these groups have been extended with brickwork but are constrained by the absence of rear garden/amenity areas in most cases. The appellant points to the absence of any heritage designation, nevertheless [address] represents an unusual and distinctive pattern of traditional dwellings of likely rural origins. Notwithstanding changes incurred, they exemplify, in overall layout and relationship with surviving outbuildings, an unusual pattern of development, now rarely encountered. Although the garden area 1 Together with a rear conservatory extension which is discretely located at the rear of the extension. of No.8 contains incidental structures, it is the front elevations of No.7 with No.8 which now make the most important contribution, side-on, to the street scene and character of these buildings, particularly in approach views to anyone passing eastwards along [address].

The proposal intends to add an ‘unheated winter garden room’2 extending across 6m of the original front elevation3. This would create a lobby area to the front entrance door which currently opens directly upon the living room. However, a projection of some 2m4 from the front elevation generates a habitable space which could be used to a much greater extent for domestic activity than would be the case without the weather-protection afforded by the proposal. This would significantly and obtrusively change the character of the fore garden areas as a traditional setting for Nos 7 and 8 as a dwelling pair.

The addition would be glassy and of contemporary appearance with grey metal structural elements that would significantly contrast with the existing building. Whilst this could be unobtrusively located in rear gardens of a conventional suburban development, what is proposed would be plainly apparent in the street scene. The appellant points to its recent extension with materials that do not match what is visibly original, but that that extension by its differentiation in terms of materials and position appears to acknowledge the significance of the original built form5 which the proposal would diminish. The forward projection of what is proposed would intrusively disrupt both symmetry and the cottages’ plainly aligned shared façade. The development would unacceptably disrupt the distinctive character and sense of place experienced by users of [address] and cause permanent harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and street scene.

Overall the proposal would significantly conflict with the objectives for the design of development proposals set out in Policies D1, D2 and D3 of Plan:MK 2016-2031 (2019) which, taken together, seek that development proposals respond positively to the site and its surrounding context. Consequently, the proposal does not accord with the development plan as a whole such that, taking all matters raised into account and for the reasons given, the appeal cannot succeed.