Appeal 3364992

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant states that, should the appeal fail, he will pursue a similar scheme using permitted development rights and that this fallback position is a material planning consideration. Whilst a different proposal might well comprise permitted development, there is nothing before me to demonstrate that the proposed development the subject of this appeal would comprise permitted development.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook.

The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling located in a prominent location at the junction of [address] and Green Hill. The appeal dwelling’s elevation facing [address] is tall and narrow, whilst that facing Green Hill appears wide and includes the appeal dwelling’s main entrance door.

The appeal property comprises a wedge-shaped plot which widens out and rises up in height towards the rear. During my site visit, I observed there to be two ancillary buildings set towards the rear of the garden. The wide side elevation of the appeal dwelling is set back from Green Hill behind a brick wall, topped with a wooden fence, and a garden area. This brick and fence boundary extends up Green Hill to an entrance driveway at the end of the garden.

Further along Green Hill there are large detached dwellings set back from the road with gardens to the front and rear. The dwelling along Green Hill immediately adjacent to the appeal property’s driveway was, at the time of my site visit, being extended to the side, adjacent to the appeal property’s rear boundary.

The appeal dwelling is located in a residential area, where the presence of gardens and trees combines with topography and distant views to provide for a sense of greenery and spaciousness.

The presence of large two storey detached dwellings along Green Hill, with brick, render and tiled materials, behind brick and fenced walls, provides for a sense of uniformity along this part of Green Hill. Topography and the appeal dwelling’s rear garden provide for a sense of visual separation from [address], where the presence of dwellings with similar design features to those of the appeal dwelling, provide for a sense of uniformity along this part of [address].

The front elevation of the proposed development would have the external appearance of a small detached residential bungalow. It would be accessed from and face directly towards the access driveway from Green Hill. Visually, due to design, topography and the blank elevation facing back towards [address], the proposed development would share little in common with and would appear well-separated from, the host dwelling.

As a consequence, the proposal would not appear as an ancillary building, but as a dwelling in its own right. As such, it would appear highly incongruous, as a small bungalow along a part of Green Hill characterised by the presence of large two storey dwellings gardens to the front and rear.

The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated by the proposed development appearing as a dwelling ‘squeezed’ close to the side elevation of the much taller and larger neighbouring dwelling, contrary to the character and pattern of development in the area. Further, the proposal would appear significantly different to the uniform characteristics of the host dwelling and its neighbours along [address]. This would add to the proposal’s incongruous appearance.

Given the above, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policies CP9, DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019); and to the Council’s Householder Planning and Design Supplementary Planning Document (2020), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

Due to the rise in levels towards the end of the appeal property’s rear garden, the height of the proposed development would be especially noticeable when seen from the rear of Number [address], next door to the appeal dwelling.

I find that this would combine with the overall size of the proposal and the short distance between the proposed development and No 220’s rear elevation to result in it appearing as an unduly dominant and intrusive feature in the outlook from the rear of this neighbouring dwelling.

[name] note that there are currently two ancillary buildings to the rear of the appeal property, these appear distinctly ancillary in form and as such, they comprise features one might expect to see within an urban garden. In contrast, due to its height and form, the proposed development would draw attention to itself, thus adding to the effect of its dominant siting and appearance.

Given this, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy DM35 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019); and to the Council’s Householder Planning and Design Supplementary Planning Document (2020), which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.

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