Appeal 3362305

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development has been taken from the appeal form, as this more comprehensively describes the proposed development, although I have omitted elements that are not acts of development. No party would be prejudiced by such.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

The appeal property is a semi-detached, two-storey dwelling set within a large corner plot in a predominately residential area. It is not within a conservation area nor the curtilage of a listed building. However, due to its corner location, and the size of the plot, the appeal site is prominent within the street scene and despite the boundary wall enclosing much of it to one side, the plot provides a welcome open character within the context of the surrounding area.

The appeal proposal omits the first floor rear extension and the width of the two storey side extension has been reduced and includes a greater set back from [address], compared to the scheme previously refused at the appeal property. However, despite these reductions, the proposed extensions are of significant scale compared to the original host property.

The ground floor area of the proposed extensions would more than double that of the original dwelling. Furthermore, despite that the proposed two-storey side extension would be setback from [address], set in from the front elevation and set down of the main ridgeline of the existing dwelling, it would appear as a large and overly dominant addition to the original dwelling. Therefore, even though the proposal may meet some of the principles set out within the Council’s Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the appeal site is a large plot, overall, the combined scale and massing of the proposed extensions would result in disproportionate additions that would not appear subordinate to the original dwelling. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

Furthermore, as a consequence of the corner location of the appeal site and that the proposed large two-storey side extension would project significantly toward [address], considerably forward of the prevailing building line of properties fronting this road, it would appear as an overly dominant and intrusive addition within the street scene. While the existing side boundary wall along [address] would diminish views of the rear single storey extension from the road, the two storey side extension and the overall scale and massing of the extensions combined would not be discernibly reduced by the boundary wall.

There are examples of other dwellings on corner or end plots nearby in the local area, which have had side extensions thereto, including some two-storey side extensions. I viewed the examples referred to in the evidence, during my site visit. However, these examples are not directly comparable in terms of their location, scale, design and appearance to that proposed. In particular, even though the appeal site is a large plot, there is no continuing line of dwellings at the rear, unlike [address] (No 123). Consequently, this means that a two-storey extension to its side would be much more prominent in the street scene compared to the extensions at No 123. Furthermore, from the evidence provided, the extensions to No 123 were granted prior to the adoption of the [name].

The two-storey side extension at [address], is at the end of a cul-de-sac and, while it does not include a set-back from the road boundary, it is of a different scale and proportions compared to the appeal proposal and has a different site context. Therefore, I have considered the proposal on its own merits, having regard to current policy and guidelines.

The proposed extensions would, as asserted by the appellant, be of high quality design and include materials to match the existing. The proposed front porch and first floor window addition above it, would likely enhance the appearance of the existing dwelling. The proposed single storey rear extension would be of comparable depth to that of the single storey extension at the rear of [address], and principle DES62 of the SPD does not negate instances where rear extensions are of greater depth than 4 metres. However, such matters would not overcome the harm caused by reason of the overall scale and prominence of the proposed extensions.

Even though the [name] is guidance, it is referred to in Policy BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) (adopted September 2021), which requires new development proposals to respect and complement the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings including the scale and context of the site and its setting. Furthermore, the principles for household extensions set out in the SPD are important to ensure new development assimilates well with the host property and surrounding area, which are general good design principles to promote high quality new development.

In view of the above, the proposed extensions would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, in conflict with Policy BE2 of the VALP and the principles set out in the [name], including principles DES56, DES58, DES59, DES60 and DES62. Although, I do not find the proposal would conflict with principles DES55 and DES57, as these relate to agricultural and equine buildings and impact on neighbours, respectively.

For the above reasons, I find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.