Appeal 3356235

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupants of [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling which has a more contemporary appearance than most other nearby properties. The wider street scene that can be viewed from [address] is characterised by pairs of traditional semi-detached dwellings.

To the left of the appeal property is [address], also a detached dwelling. Although built more recently, the front elevation of [address] appears more consistent with the neighbouring semi-detached houses. To the right of the appeal site, is a row of mature trees and hedging, behind which are houses fronting Buttermere. Views of the houses on Buttermere from [address] are largely obscured by the trees and hedging.

Although the appeal property has a different appearance to other dwellings in the vicinity, its current scale and proportions do not appear significantly at odds with surrounding development. Currently, the front elevation of the first floor is set back from the ground floor front elevation. The proposed front extension would infill this gap, adding significant bulk to the front elevation and altering the proportions of the dwelling. Along with the proposed flat roof overhang, these would appear as incongruous additions to the front of the appeal property.

The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. As such, it would conflict with Policy BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2021 (VALP) which requires that development respects local character including, amongst other things, proportions.

The appellant refers to the proposed first floor extension being within a 45 degree line taken from the window of [address]. Be this as it may, such a test does not form part of the development plan policies referred to by the Council. Moreover, the effect of the proposed extension on the outlook of neighbouring occupiers is a planning judgment.

There is a gap between the appeal dwelling and [address]. However, because of the height and projection of the proposed extension, it would unacceptably dominate the outlook from the nearest first floor window of [address]. The proposal would therefore harm neighbouring occupant’s living conditions. As such, it would conflict with Policy BE3 of the VALP which protects the amenity of existing residents.

I understand the proposed extension has been sought to increase the size of the appellant’s family property. However, this point has not been further substantiated. In any event, the extension would be permanent, as would the harm identified, which would not be the case for the needs of the current occupants.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.