Appeal 3355408

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the appeal proposal differs between the application form and the decision notice. Given that the planning application was amended before it was determined and the appellant has adopted the wording from the decision notice in their appeal documentation, in the interests of clarity, I have therefore used the wording from the decision notice to describe the proposed development in the banner heading.

The main issues are:

The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbours, with specific regard to outlook.

[address] is a cul-de-sac predominantly comprising two-storey detached properties. Properties are organised in a mostly uniform pattern, with properties being set back from the road and with open frontages containing parking spaces. The streetscene is verdant with grass verges, hedges and trees dispersed throughout the locality. The road is predominantly linear, until the end of the cul-de-sac where the road curves. The area has a suburban character and appearance.

The properties within [address] have distinctive features, although some have had extensions and alterations. Some properties are designed with a facing gable and a long catslide roof. Other properties include two side facing gables with the roof pitch facing the road. Hanging tiles and distinctive stone chimneys are also prevalent features. The end of [address] has been extended through the addition of three further properties in a differing architectural style. However, these properties read as a later addition to the area, and [address] retains a strong and perceptible character and appearance.

No [site address] is a detached property comprising a facing gable, a large catslide roof, a stone chimney and hanging tiles. The property follows the distinctive style of [address] and contributes positively to the prevailing character of the area in this regard. Whilst the property is situated towards the end of the cul-de-sac, views of No 23 are still achievable from along [address] due to the plot being situated on the return of the road.

The proposed development would replace the catslide roof with a two-storey extension with a hipped roof and a double pitch. The proposed ridges and eaves would be in line with the existing ridge and eaves of No 23. The design of the extension would add excessive bulk and width to the property above the ground floor. As a result, the proposal would not have a subservient appearance to the host dwelling and would be visually prominent within the streetscene to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst matching materials and a replacement chimney stack are proposed, the positive and distinctive appearance of the property achieved through the catslide roof would be lost. It would be replaced with an extension which would be unsympathetic with the character and appearance of the host property and the wider locality.

For the reasons that I have given, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the area. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policies DSC1 and DSC2 of the Broxbourne Local Plan (2020) (the LP). These policies seek to ensure that development achieves a high standard of design and respects the character and appearance of the host building and wider area.

The Council has set out that the proposal would result in a harmful impact on neighbouring outlook through the visual appearance of the proposed extension. The Council identify conflict with Policy EQ1 of the LP in this regard, however no specific neighbours are identified.

I am mindful that outlook as referred to by Policy EQ1, refers to the living conditions of neighbouring properties rather than the character and appearance of what neighbours can see within the streetscene. I have previously covered the impact on the character and appearance of the area, in which I have found harm as a result of the appeal scheme.

I have not, however, been presented with evidence with regard to how the proposed extension would result in the loss of outlook to any neighbouring properties in relation to their living conditions. I see no reason to find any undue harm in this regard and I am satisfied that in relation to living conditions, the proposed extension would not unduly compromise the outlook of any nearby neighbours.

For this reason, the proposal would not conflict with Policy EQ1 of the Broxbourne Local Plan (2020). This policy seeks to avoid detrimental impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of developments.

I have been supplied with evidence from the appellant of other extensions that they feel are similar to the current appeal and have been given approval by the Council. Most of these examples share limited similarity in the context of this appeal given they are located away from the specific characteristics and appearance of the appeal site. In my opinion, as I have explained in my decision, [address] retains a strong sense of character and appearance which the appeal scheme would conflict with.

In any case, I have considered the appeal before me on its individual planning merits and the presence of these examples do not persuade me that the appeal proposal is acceptable or otherwise justify the harm that I have identified in respect of the scheme.

For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.