Appeal 3359690

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the area and b) highway safety with specific regard to parking.

The appeal site is a detached dwelling in a residential area which is predominantly made up of detached properties of varied appearance with active frontages that are set back from the roadside behind low boundary treatments. The property is traditionally attractive with distinguishing chimney features and a prominent front gable end. The site also benefits from trees and hedging to the frontage which, along with the above, make a positive contribution to the appearance of the site.

The proposal would protrude substantially from the front elevation where some existing trees are positioned and would remove the ground floor section of the existing chimney detail. The projection and plainness of the extension would appear as an awkward bolt on to the property that would negatively draw the eye. The scheme would extend further forward than the existing feature gable and unbalance the appearance of the property creating a different roofline, blocky appearance and eroding some distinguishing features of the dwelling.

The proposal would therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and conflict with Policies ST1 and HG7 of the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 (LP) which are concerned with development not adversely affecting the character of an environment amongst other things.

The appeal site benefits from a driveway and an attached garage. Most properties near to the appeal site have off-road parking. [address] is not a main route and is therefore relatively quiet. The Ashfield Residential Car Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2014 specifies that a four bedroom dwelling should provide three spaces. The appellant has demonstrated room for three however the proposed layout would only be suitable for two vehicles to park practically. There would therefore be a shortfall of one space.

There is ample on-street parking capacity locally. [address] is a wide road with a footpath. The parking of a vehicle on the road would not therefore restrict the free flow of traffic or pedestrian movements. Furthermore, the appeal site benefits from a garage that could also be used for parking. I am therefore comfortable that the provision for parking within and without the appeal site would be acceptable. As such, there would be no harm to highway safety as a result of the proposal. It would therefore comply with Policy ST1 of the LP which is concerned with development not adversely affecting highway safety amongst other things.

The appeal scheme would provide an additional bedroom for a family member however it is unclear that the appeal scheme would be the sole way of providing such. A condition to ensure that the trees and hedging on site are retained would soften the impact of the proposal however it would not overcome the harm to the character and appearance of the area that I have identified. The same can be said for a condition that would ensure that the proposed materials matched those used in the existing dwelling. With this and the above in mind, I am not led to recommending allowing the appeal.

[name] have found a lack of harm relating to the second main issue, this would be neutral and thus incapable of weighing in favour of the appeal scheme. I have found that there would be harm and subsequent development plan conflict regarding the first main issue. There are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.