Appeal 3364831

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant states that, as a consequence of a change to a proposed first floor window to a projecting window, a Section 73 application was made to obtain retrospective consent so that it could be retained.

The appeal property is located adjacent to the Harlaxton Conservation Area and the [address]. The Council is satisfied that the development does not result in any harm to the significance of heritage assets.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a modern detached two storey dwelling that has been extended. It is located within a small residential cul-de-sac comprising detached two storey dwellings and bungalows.

The appeal dwelling, like other dwellings in the cul-de-sac, is set back from the road behind a garden and driveway and has a garden to the rear. The presence of gardens, grass verges and street trees provide for a green and spacious local character.

Further, during my site visit, I observed that neighbouring dwellings in the cul-de-sac share many design features resulting in the two storey dwellings appear similar to one another and the bungalows appearing similar to one another. This presents the area with an attractive sense of uniformity.

The appeal dwelling has been extended and this has resulted in a markedly different appearance to neighbouring dwellings. Perhaps most noticeably, unlike other two storey dwellings along [address], the appeal dwelling has a large projecting gable to its front elevation.

The siting, height and projection of the gable results in it appearing prominently in its surroundings. Consequently, as a large projecting bay to the front gable at first floor height, the development draws the eye to a significant degree, as it comprises a further projection from a gable which itself is a highly prominent feature along [address].

The harm arising from the above is exacerbated as a result of the appearance of the development. The oriel window with a canopy above the glazing draws the eye as a large and incongruous feature unlike any other within the cul-de-sac. The window appears unsympathetic to the host dwelling and out of keeping with its surroundings.

Taking the above into account, I find that the development harms the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to South Kesteven Local Plan (2020) Policy DE1, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

The appellant refers to carrying out a community consultation exercise prior to submitting a variation application and notes that no objections were received at that stage. I note this but as above, I have found that the development results in harm and hence the decision below.

The appellant considers that development allowed under permitted development rights would result in a similar or far higher degree of visual change than does the development the subject of this appeal. Whether or not this is the case, I have found that the development harms local character and this is not something that is altered or mitigated by permitted development rights.

For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed.