Appeal 3364318

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 dwelling and surrounding area.

The host dwelling is a detached chalet bungalow with living accommodation to the roof space and a large flat roofed single storey projection to the front which incorporates a porch and previously converted garage. It is located on a private cul-de-sac off [site address] and set within a small row of dwellings that are of different design, but similar scale.

The proposed development would involve the flat roof of the existing front projection being replaced by an asymmetrical pitched roof with a ridge that would sit slightly above the bottom of the first-floor window. The front door would be repositioned to the side of the proposed porch and replaced by floor to ceiling windowpanes and cedar cladding to the external walls. Although these design features are modern and innovative and aesthetically would not detract from the appearance of the host dwelling, they would emphasise the appearance of the forward projecting element.

While the proposed development would result in only a minimal increase to the footprint of the host dwelling and would not project any further forward than at present, the increased height due to the pitched roof, would increase the volume, scale and mass of the porch significantly. This would result in a disproportionate addition that would not be subservient to the host dwelling which would be accentuated due to the use of more modern materials.

Given that all the dwellings on the cul-de-sac are of similar scale, and the host dwelling is the first property viewed when entering [site address] , the increased height, size and appearance of the front projection would appear unduly prominent within the street scene therefore causing harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal proposal would therefore conflict with Policy CP17 of the Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policy DG1 of the Exeter Local Plan

Policy CP17 relates to design and recognises the importance of development that preserves and enhances the character of an area. Policy DG1 provides design guidance and requires that volumes and shapes of development relate well to the character and appearance of adjoining buildings.

The Householder’s Guide: Design of Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document does support innovative design. However, development of this kind should respond well to all other planning considerations including that the scale and massing of extensions are subservient to the host dwelling.

My attention has been drawn to examples of nearby development that reflects the diversity of the area. [name] do not have full details of these developments, I observed the mixed character of the wider area on my site visit noting the variety of dwellings in terms of size, style and design. However, I have considered this appeal on its merits, assessing any impact that it would have on its own immediate setting.

It has also been suggested that as the appeal dwelling is located on a private road, the impact on the street scene would be limited. However limited public visibility does not remove the need for proposals to accord with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Furthermore, I note that the proposed development would allow for new updated insulation that would improve energy efficiency as well as the use of SuDS, however these benefits would not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I 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.