Appeal 3365621

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to an extension and associated works. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to a carport and associated works and planning permission is granted for a carport and associated works at [site address] , Aynho, [name], [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2024/5225/FULL, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

For clarity, the appeal is only allowed in respect of the proposed carport and works associated with the carport. It is dismissed in respect of the proposed extension to the appeal dwelling and any works associated with the extension.

The Council’s reason for refusal focused upon the proposed rear extension. The Council stated that it was satisfied that the proposed carport and associated works would not result in any harm. Consequently, the main issue in this case is that set out below.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the Aynho Conservation Area

The appeal dwelling is a two storey stone-built semi-detached dwelling. It is located in a prominent position at the corner of The Glebe and Portway. The surrounding area is residential and falls within the Aynho Conservation Area.

The Aynho Conservation Area is characterised by the presence of stone-built period properties and dwellings, many of which are set back from the road behind grass verges and within garden plots. This and the presence of stone walls affords the area a strong sense of heritage and uniformity within green and spacious surroundings.

The appeal dwelling is set well back from The Glebe behind a wide grass verge and a low stone wall. A garden to the side of the dwelling is bordered by a low wooden fence, which separates the appeal property from a grass verge and footpath running alongside Portway.

Like neighbouring dwellings along The Glebe, the appeal dwelling has a distinctive narrow gable, providing for a steep pitched roof. During my site visit, I observed that there are open views from Portway across the rear gardens of the appeal dwelling and its neighbours along The Glebe. This provides for clear views of rear elevations, none of which appear extended above ground floor level. As such, the rear elevations of the appeal dwelling and its neighbours along The Glebe, make a positive contribution to Aynho Conservation Area’s green, spacious and uniform qualities.

The proposed rear extension would comprise a two-storey addition. It would comprise a tall and prominent addition and would significantly alter the appearance of the host dwelling, resulting in the creation of an L-shaped building. Due to its height and considerable rear projection, I find that the proposed rear extension would appear as an alien form of development, out of character with the distinctive, uniform features of dwellings along this part of The Glebe.

The harm arising from the above, would be exacerbated as a result of the appeal dwelling’s prominent position and the open views from Portway across the rear of The Glebe. [name], the proposal would appear incongruous against neighbouring dwellings, with their uniform rear elevations at first floor and roof level.

Given the above, the proposal would detract from and would not conserve the appearance of the Aynho Conservation Area. Having regard to paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and to Planning Practice Guidance, I consider that the harm to the character and appearance of the Aynho Conservation Area would be less than substantial.

This needs to be balanced against any public benefits the development may bring and in this regard, there is nothing before me that comprises or amounts to a public benefit that outweighs the harm identified.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the Aynho Conservation Area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy BN5 of the [name] Local Plan Part 1 (2014); and to Policy HE6 of the [name] 2 Local Plan, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

For the reasons given above, the appeal succeeds insofar as it relates to a carport, but it does not succeed in respect of an extension.