Appeal 3360952

The appeal is dismissed.

[name] 2024, the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework and that no party would be disadvantaged by such a cause of action

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property, No [site address] , (No 99), is a semi-detached dwelling sited on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. There is a mixture of housing types within this residential area and a wide variety in design and styles. A noticeable feature of the corner plots to be found on [address] is a garden/amenity space at the side of dwellings set away from the highway. Notwithstanding the variety in house types and styles, this gives an attractive consistency to the pattern of development found in the area.

[name] 7 ([name]) of the Council’s Extending your Home Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides that extensions within the side gardens of corner properties will be permitted where they are not harmful to the street scene or not out of character with the area. In this case, the proposed extension would be subordinate to the existing dwelling and would be set back from the front elevation and its ridge height set down from the existing roofline. However, notwithstanding that it would be set in from the pavement edge, the proposed extension would dominate the side garden. By infilling most of the gap at the side, it would add bulk to the dwelling and would result in a discordant addition to the streetscene in this location.

I acknowledge that given the public highway between them, there would remain a gap between No 99 and its neighbouring property, No [address]. Nonetheless the visual gap would be narrowed detracting from the spacious feel at this location. The proposed extension would also detract from the appearance of balance found between Nos 99 and [address] and No [address] and remove the sense of symmetry found in this location. Further in views from [address], rather than providing a robust visual context, the bulk of the two storey extension would unduly draw the eye. Overall, this would cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene.

I appreciate that there are a number of dwellings to be found in the immediate area with greater widths than that proposed. However these properties are detached properties set within a larger plot size and as such their size and scale does not unduly dominate the streetscene. I acknowledge too that [address] sits within a standard residential context with considerable variety in its form and type of dwellings. However this would not overcome the adverse effect I have identified, nor does it detract from the contribution that the side gardens to dwellings make to the prevailing character of the area.

I note that the proposal is acceptable in relation to highway issues and that no concerns have been raised by the Council in relation to the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties or other matters. However the absence of harm in these respects does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such it would be contrary to Policy CDMP3 of the Adopted Wyre Local Plan (2011-2031) which requires development to be designed to reflect the character of the area. It would also conflict with guidance contained in [name] 7 ([name]) of the SPD, details of which I have given above.

[name] dismiss the appeal.