Appeal 6000167

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The site consists of a two-storey dwelling and attached single-storey garage building. It lies within a street of suburban detached and semi-detached houses, many with gable roof features. The existing house is within a plot with a width larger than most in the road. Amongst other things, the proposal seeks to erect a first-floor extension over the length of the existing garage building, and forward of it.

This proposed extension would comply with some of the guidelines of the [address] Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted May 2015. These include having a ridge lower than the host dwelling, and being set back to the side and front. As such, the proposed extension would appear as an addition to the dwelling.

Even so, the SPD makes clear that such development should harmonise with the original appearance of the property. To avoid over-dominating the scale and character of the original dwelling, it advises that two-storey side extensions should not exceed half the width of the existing property. There is no dispute that the proposal would not accord with this requirement.

Moreover, the proposed first-floor extension would have an excessive length and includes an additional large front gable. These features, combined with the overall height, width, mass and bulk of the proposed extension, would not be subservient to the original house. Instead, it would appear disproportionate, over-dominant and out of place when seen in conjunction with the host property. Consequently, the proposal would harm the visual amenity of the dwelling and the wider area.

Nearby number [address] is also a dwelling within a wider plot. The property has been significantly extended, at a time when the Council had design guidance in force. However, this pre-dated the advice in the current SPD. Reference has been made to extensions to other properties in the wider area, said to be of greater than half the width of their hosts. That said, I have few details of these properties and extensions with which to make useful comparison. In any case, I have considered the proposal before me on its own merits.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with policy LP1 of the Council’s Local Plan, adopted July 2018, which requires an acceptable scale, bulk and massing, assessed against the SPD. I give this conflict very significant negative weight. For the same reasons, the proposal would conflict with the similar requirements of policy 28 of the emerging Publication Plan.

The proposal would improve the internal accommodation within the dwelling, to make it a more usable family home. It would also result in higher thermal and environmental standards. However, as these benefits are essentially private ones, I give them limited positive weight.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, and the weight I give to them, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.