Appeal 3365214

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal proposal has three distinct elements. I note that planning permission for the proposed rear extension and the alterations and extension to the existing garage have previously been granted by the Council under reference SMD/2024/0098. Consequently, the focus for this appeal is the extension and alterations to the first floor of the property.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the streetscene.

The appeal property is a detached dormer bungalow (with the dormer being on the rear), which is situated in a residential area of [site address] . Dwellings along this part of [address] vary in terms of their age, scale, heights, and design. The appeal property sits between a two-storey dwelling at number 31 and the rear garden of a bungalow at number [address]. When viewed from [address], the ridge height of the appeal property appears to be similar to the ridge height of number 31.

The proposal includes alterations and extension to create a two-storey dwelling with first-floor front and rear facing windows constructed at eaves level. The Council states that the increase in the height of the property would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would fail to “harmonise” with the streetscene.

The Council considers that the proposal would conflict with Policy DC1 of the adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan 2018 and with the provisions of its Supplementary Planning Document – [name]. Policy DC1 seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that new development is designed to reflect the site and its surroundings, including its scale and height. This accords with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (NPPF), which also requires new development to be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of the area.

In reaching my decision, I have given weight to the appellant’s supporting arguments in relation to improved thermal efficiency that would result from the proposal. I agree that energy efficiency is a matter on which the Government advises local authorities to give significant weight. However, that needs to be balanced against other considerations. I also note that there were differences of opinion between officers at the Council regarding the merits of the proposal. This is not uncommon.

Although there is a mix of dwelling heights in the locality, including dwellings on the opposite side of [address], the appeal property currently sits comfortably against the neighbouring dwelling at number 31 and the rear of the bungalows on [address]. The proposed increased height and scale of the appeal property would appear as a discordant and visually disruptive element that would be at odds with the character and appearance of this part of the streetscene. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policy DC1 and with the provisions of the NPPF, as referred to above.

For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be dismissed