Appeal 3361861

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 issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property.

[site address] is a detached two-storey dwelling which is surrounded by other residential properties. It has a traditional appearance with a main gable roof, natural stone walls and roof and symmetrical fenestration. While it also features a side extension which is formed of a mono-pitched roof and concrete blocks, this is a subservient feature which does not significantly detract from the simple and rustic aesthetic of the dwelling. Overall, with its well-balanced design and traditional materials, [site address] is an attractive dwelling which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

Due to the considerable scale of the proposed extensions together with their overly complicated design, they would be incongruous additions to the host property. Despite the use of timber in the area, its use here combined with the fragmented design and fenestration of the extensions would unacceptably contrast with the simple and traditional appearance of the cottage. These would be apparent from properties in the surrounding area and glimpsed views from [site address] . [name] note the appellant points to a lack of visibility from the road or from an elevated position, however this does not justify the harm of the proposal, since it would detract from the pleasing balance and rustic character of [site address] .

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host building. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies HC8 and CP14 of the Stroud District Local Plan (2015), which require that extensions are in keeping with the character of the original dwelling and respect the surrounding area. For the same reasons, the proposal would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that developments should add to the overall quality of the area and be sympathetic to local character.

While the appellant states that no objections were received, I note from the Council’s submissions that some objections were received to the proposal, including on matters in relation to character and appearance. The appellant also refers to support from neighbours, but this is not substantiated by evidence. Furthermore, the builder being well known in the area, the absence of an opportunity to redesign the scheme, the use of cobblestones and the appellant’s family circumstances are not matters which would lead me to a different conclusion on the appeal.

The appeal site is located within the Cotswolds National Landscape. While the effect to the National Landscape is not in dispute, great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. In that regard, given that the harm of the proposal would be localised to the appeal property, I am therefore satisfied that no harm would arise to the Cotswolds National Landscape. However, this does not justify the harm of the proposal identified under the main issue.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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