Appeal 3356629

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form, on the basis of the submitted plans, the proposal would be more accurately described as two-storey side extension. The Council determined the application on this basis, and I shall deal with the appeal in the same manner.

The decision notice refers to Principles DG49 and DG50 of the Mid Sussex District Plan. However, it is clear from the Council’s report that this should have been a reference to Principles DG49 and DG50 from [name] Planning Document 2020 (SPD). The Council has provided relevant extracts from the SPD and I have based my assessment of the appeal on this information.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the area.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling with catslide roofs projecting either side of the two-storey core of the dwelling. The property is located on the corner of [address] and [address] with an open aspect and spacious feel to the side (south). [address] is a small cul de sac of dwellings of a similar design. [site address] (No 1) is located at the corner of [address] and [address]. In common with the dwelling on the opposite side of the close there is a gap between the side elevation and [address] which gives the entrance to the cul de sac an open aspect and spacious character. The alterations and extensions to some of the houses does not undermine the character of the cul de sac.

The proposed development is for a two-storey side extension to the south of the dwelling. The extension seeks to replicate the design of the two-storey core which will unbalance the appearance of the dwelling and detract from the characteristic catslide roof slope and dormer window arrangement. The extension is not set back from the front of the dwelling and will compete with the existing two-storey element for dominance.

The proposed development would be located forward of the building line on [address] and close to the southern boundary which would make it prominent on the street scene and reduce the feeling of openness at the corner by enclosing the space which is replicated on the property at the opposite corner and forms part of the character of [address]. The appellant argues that the trees which were present on the [address] frontage of the site enclosed the entrance to the cul de sac. Whilst that appears to have been the case from the evidence before me, those trees formed part of the vegetated character of [address]. They would not have had an equivalent of the harmful visual impact to the enclosing nature of the two-storey extension that I have found.

During my site visit I took account of the impact of the gradient of [address]. The prominence of the proposal will alter depending on where you approach the site from, but it will remain incongruous on the street scene due to its location on the corner plot. The fact that [address] is a private road with no footpath does not alter the harm that would arise to the character of the area from the proposed development.

For these reasons, I conclude the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the area. Consequently in this regard it would conflict with Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 which seeks to protect open space which contributes to the character of the area, resist side extensions where they have an adverse effect on the street scene and requires extensions to be subservient to the main dwelling and set back from the front of the house allowing the original building to remain the dominant element of the property.

The appellant has suggested amending the proposed plans. However, I am mindful that the appeals process should not be used to evolve a scheme to overcome the Council’s reasons for refusal and instead a fresh planning application should usually be made.1

In support of the appeal, my attention was drawn to [address] (No 6) which has been extended in a similar way to the proposal. The location of No [address] is fundamentally different to the appeal site, it does not occupy a prominent corner plot therefore the impact of the proposal on the street scene is not comparable. Photographs of other properties were also provided but I have no details of the circumstances under which they were constructed or where they are located, therefore I cannot draw any comparison with the proposal that would weigh in its favour. The presence of these does not overcome the harm that I have otherwise found. 1 [name] of the Procedural Guide Planning Appeals – England advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the local planning authority, and on what people’s views were sought.

I note the letters of support for the scheme, however, the letters of support do not outweigh my findings.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.