Appeal 3353333

For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.

The Council takes no issue with the design or principle of the rear and side extensions proposed, and raises no concerns in relation to any impacts on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers through loss of privacy, excessive overshadowing or overbearing impact. From what I saw during my site visit, which included access to the rear of the property, I have no reason to disagree. The Council does take issue, however, with the proposed two-storey extension to the front. In light of that, the main issue in this case relates to the effect of the proposed two-storey front extension on the character and appearance of the area.

[address] is a spacious residential street within a large housing estate. The appeal property fronts onto the southern side of the road, within a long run of detached dwellings of similar, although not identical design. All are characterised however, by their homogenous roofs, with the ridge running parallel to the road, with gable ends and an unbroken eaves line. The long views along this side of the road, in both directions, are characterised by the gabled side ends of the properties and the uninterrupted roof lines, with all the roof planes sloping down towards the street with unbroken eaves lines. The overall uniformity of the properties, including the roofscape, creates an architectural rhythm that is a defining feature of the street scene here.

When considered in isolation, I consider the proposed design to be acceptable. In this case, however, context is everything. The extension would introduce a large, two-storey gable addition projecting to the front of the property, the ridge to which would tie in with the ridge of the existing house. When seen in profile in either direction along the road, it would be seen in abrupt and jarring contrast to the prevailing roofscape, interrupting the established rhythm of the street, with consequent harm to the character and appearance of the area.

I recognise that the opposite side of [address] has a much more varied character and appearance than the southern side, including occasional pairs of dwellings that sit gable end on to the road, interspersed with side roads and dwellings of similar design to No 145. However, it is the long run of properties on the southern side that provide the immediate context for assessment of the development proposed.

The harm that I have found as a consequence of the development proposed brings the development into conflict with policy ST33 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan, policy 8 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan and paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework,1 which broadly seek to protect and enhance the built environment and secure high quality development of a design which responds appropriately and sympathetically to the character and appearance of the locality.

I have given consideration as to whether a split decision might be appropriate in this case, allowing those elements of the proposal to which the Council has no objection, but refusing the front dormer. However, it is not clear to me that the front extension is clearly severable from the rest of the scheme. There could be implications, for example, for the internal layout which might make the scheme unworkable. Consequently, a split decision is not appropriate in this instance.

For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should not succeed.