Appeal 3369475

The appeal is dismissed.

The street name is given as [name] on the application form and the Council’s decision notice. On some of the plans and other documents, however, it is referred to as [name].

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

Green Gables is a 2 storey detached house sitting on its own in a large plot within a sporadically developed area of relatively flat, open landscape. The proposal is to substantially increase the size of the house, with extensions to the front, side and rear, a significant increase in height and the addition of a large detached garage with first floor annexe accommodation.

Paragraph 3.3.3 of Policy 2 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 (LP) emphasises the importance of extensions being carefully designed to respect and relate to the original building and integrate sensitively with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. There must be some scope, however, for the extension and improvement of Green Gables without necessarily adhering to the same design ethos as the existing house. The building is not of any strong architectural quality and nearby buildings are varied in terms of architecture and character. The plot is, furthermore, capable of accommodating more built development without becoming overcrowded. LP Policy 2 does not set any maximum size for extensions.

On the other hand, the existing building does have the advantage of traditional design and proportions, which help it to sit well in its rural setting. Though it is well back from the main road ([name]) and partly screened by trees, it is seen on the approaches from both directions along that road as well as in close range and medium range views from the side street, [name]. Its prominence in the landscape means that it is of some importance to local character.

The proposal would transform the house in terms of both scale and design, creating a much taller and more modern building with a block-like form and a much increased visual presence in the landscape. The use of an extensive, low pitched main roof to cover the bulk of the building would not fit well even within the varied architectural character of the area and the increased height would make this feature intrusive. The use of 4 projecting gables would not sufficiently disguise the bulk and heavy massing of the house. The appellant argues that this would be good modern design but I have not seen any convincing design rationale. I find that the extended house would be an awkward, overly tall and bulky structure that would stand out as incongruous in local views.

The proposed garage/annexe would be more traditionally designed and proportioned, but would represent a further sizable building on the site, in a prominent position on the site frontage. Its size and visual presence would exacerbate the negative effect of the proposed extensions. Screening the house and garage with tree planting as suggested by the appellant would not adequately address these design flaws.

I note that there are other large houses in the area, including nearby at [address] where it looks like sizable extensions have been added recently. Whilst this reinforces my view that large extension(s) could potentially be acceptable at Green Gables, the extensions to [address] are less visible, being set back from the main house, and do not interfere with that house’s traditional proportions or massing. I did not see any nearby houses which were similar to the proposal in design and massing.

I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the local area. It therefore conflicts with LP policies 2 and 3 and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which aim to secure high quality design that maximises opportunities to improve the character and quality of the area.

I have considered all other matters raised. In particular I recognise the appellant’s reasonable wish to improve the family accommodation here and note that the works are intended to improve energy efficiency. Both of these factors weigh in favour of the proposal. I nevertheless find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and see no overriding material considerations. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.