Appeal 3351491

The appeal is dismissed.

I am the Inspector appointed to determine a similar appeal on the adjoining semi-detached property at 7 Nuneaton Drive1. The appeals raise similar issues but are the subject of separate decisions. As such there may be some duplication on matters including the consideration of planning policy.

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

The appeal site comprises a right hand side brick semi-detached property. It is positioned at an angle, thus bringing it forward of neighbouring properties and closer to the road than No 7. The existing dwelling, like its adjoining neighbour at has a modest front porch. The existing porch is positioned slightly off from the mid-way point of the properties with space to either side. The overall design and scale of the proposal, which seeks to add a front extension matches No 7, which it would adjoin. Front porches and bay windows are very common features in the immediate area. Although their size and design vary the majority do not extend across the full width of the front elevation. Therefore, although there are a variety of differing house types, together they generally have a commonality. This is an attribute of the character of the area and provides cohesion to its visual appearance.

The proposal seeks to increase the amount of development at the front of the property. It would be deeper than the existing porch and extend across the full width of the dwelling. This would not be reflective of other similar properties in the area. It would diminish the contribution of the generally consistently sized front 1 Appeal Ref: APP/W0734/D/24/3350996 projections have on the pattern of development and layout of the area. The depth of the proposal would also bring development closer to the road. Given the position and angled siting of the host dwelling it would be prominent and incongruous within the streetscene. As this would not be a limited form of front extension the proposal would conflict with the aims of the Middlesbrough Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document adopted January 2013.

Furthermore, as there are numerous properties with similar features, there is a reasonable prospect of similar development being repeated nearby as they could be extended in a similar way. Although proposals are considered on their own merit, in this case if similar development were to be often repeated, the cumulative effect would cause further harm to the character of the area through the erosion of the space between properties resulting in a more built up layout.

Notwithstanding there is a similar proposal for No 7 before me, I cannot be certain that either proposal would be built together. I am not of the view that this would be a reasonable condition to impose on either appellant. However, I must also consider this aspect. Taking them both into account there would be further harm resulting from the additional combined bulk of two larger front extensions, which together would also be unduly large and out of character for the area. Thus harm individually and in combination would arise.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies DC1 and CS5 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework Core Strategy, adopted February 2008. Together these policies require high quality design, which is well integrated, enhances and takes account of the visual appearance of the area.

The appellant would benefit from the proposal. It would enhance the living environment and provide more adaptable accommodation for the future. However, I only have limited information in this regard. It is not clear if a similar amount of space could be achieved through other less harmful additions to the property. [name] have sympathy with this situation, ultimately this is a private matter of limited weight and does not outweigh the harm.

I have been provided with numerous examples of other properties, with front extensions. I have no addresses for these and extent of the photographs limits how much of each building and area I can see. I therefore cannot be certain that these are sufficiently similar to warrant a different conclusion.

I appreciate the appellant’s frustration regarding correspondence with the Council. However, this is not a matter before me and has no bearing on the appeal.

For the reasons given above, the proposal is contrary to the development plan. I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.