Appeal 3370968

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council states that planning permission was previously granted for a proposal including a single storey rear extension1 but that this was not implemented.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace dwelling dating from the Georgian period. Like other dwellings in the terrace and other dwellings in the surrounding area, it is constructed from stone. It has a slate roof and a single storey stone and slate lean-to extension to the rear.

The appeal dwelling is located in a residential area, characterised by the presence of period stone-built two and three storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings, as well as more modern two storey terraced dwellings. [address] from the appeal property there is a sports field with woodland and countryside beyond. The area immediately around the appeal property is characterised by the presence of a cluster of dwellings, with greenery, woodland and a play area beyond.

The appeal property is situated in a prominent corner location, where [address] meets [name] and is sited such that its rear elevation fronts this junction. Consequently, the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling is widely visible from the public domain. 1 Reference: 2016/0339.

The proposed development would comprise a large single storey extension which would extend across the full width of the appeal dwelling and which would project well into the rear yard/garden area. It would have a tall, flat roof. Its width, height and projection would result in the extension appearing as a large and somewhat boxy addition to the rear of the dwelling.

I find that the design of the proposal, with its flat roof enclosed by an aluminium parapet and its black composite fluted cladding would result in the proposal drawing attention to itself as an incongruous feature, out of keeping with the more traditional vernacular and the stone materials of its immediate surroundings.

The harm arising from this would be exacerbated as a result of the proposal’s siting in a prominent position, facing towards the junction of [address] and [name]. The proposal would be widely visible from the surrounding area, and the eye would be drawn to its boxy form and to its uncommon materials, which would appear in stark contrast to the appearance of the host dwelling, its neighbours and to the established character of the area.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policies HS9 and ENV1 of the Rossendale Local Plan (2021); and to the Council’s Alterations and Extensions to Residential Properties Supplementary Planning Document (2008), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

In support of the proposal, the appellant refers to the key benefits arising from the construction method and the sustainability of the materials proposed. These comprise factors that stand in favour the proposal but which do not outweigh the harm identified.

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