Appeal 3368617

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality.

The appeal property is detached two storey home which lies side-on to an estate distributor road, [address]. This road has a mix of dwelling arrangements alongside it but for the most part the stretch in question has fenced or walled rear gardens running to the footway, keeping most built form away from the highway and allowing some vegetation to be, on occasion, seen above. The area is of established suburban residential character and the appeal property and its neighbouring dwellings sit comfortably within the pleasing appearance of the locality. The proposal is as described above.

The appeal scheme would entail an appreciable and prominent length of pitched roof single storey structure running directly along the back-edge of the pavement. To my mind this would make the plot look cramped, impinge upon the sense of space which prevails along this road, and remove the scope for any landscape alongside. The scheme’s visual impact would be exacerbated because this stretch of road has no grass verge and because the design of the extension itself would appear rather contrived with its uncharacteristic and asymmetrical roof form and ungainly abutment to existing built form. Regrettably, it would stand out as a visually-jarring, over-large, poorly-positioned structure.

Policy DM1 of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036 (LP) seeks to ensure, amongst other matters, that new development is of suitable mass, design, scale and layout for its context and protective of the character and appearance of built-up areas. This is reflected within the broad objectives of the Council’s The Quality Places SPD, a document which cannot be expected to cover every eventuality. For the reasons given above I conclude that there would be conflict with the LP policy and the relevant objectives of the SPD.

I do understand the wish to plan for a relative needing care and I hope that a satisfactory solution can be found. I have viewed ‘The Meads’ drawn to my attention but found the plot, the scheme’s design, the nature of the street and the space opposite to be very different from the case in hand. In any event I must determine this proposal on its own merits. I was sorry to read that the Appellant expresses some dissatisfaction with the way in which the Council handled matters during the application stage but this is not within my remit.

I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above.

I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered; the Council’s policy which I cite mirrors relevant objectives within the Framework.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.