Appeal 6000258

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the address of the site from the Council’s Decision Notice, which better reflects the location than that used in the application form. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced as a result.

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

The site consists of an established two-storey brick dwelling, positioned on the corner of [address] and Park Place, at the end of a row of houses. It has windows on both publicly facing elevations and their fenestration arrangement provides a good degree of symmetry.

The postal address of the dwelling is taken from [address]. However, the main front door of the property faces onto Park Place. This side also has more windows, and a large lounge window, on a longer elevation than the [address] side. As such, despite the road being arguably secondary in nature, it is the Park Place elevation that is the most important and impressive, and therefore appears as the front. This feature contributes positively to the traditional distinctiveness of the street scene.

The proposal seeks to erect a single storey extension to the Park Place elevation. As a result, the existing main front door would be relocated to be on the extension, facing in the direction of [address], and with something of a porch-like appearance. The existing kitchen window would be repositioned outwards. The proposed extension would align with an adjacent two-storey projection. It would be subordinate to the house, and would re-use existing materials.

Nevertheless, the proposal would make the [address] side of the property appear as the front elevation, thereby changing the visual orientation of the property from that originally intended. This would give a conflicting appearance, jarring with the remaining frontage design features of the Park Place elevation and detracting from its broadly symmetrical and impressive appearance.

For these reasons, the proposal would undermine the distinctive design of the dwelling, and would not accord with the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document1. This aims to retain original features, identifies the importance of front doors, and seeks to avoid projections beyond front elevations, albeit in the context of side extensions.

Consequently, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to policy LP1 of the Council’s Local Plan, adopted July 2018. This requires respect for local character, including the relationship of frontages. For the same reasons the proposal would conflict with the similar requirements of emerging Publication Local Plan policy 28.

An extension to the property opposite at 2 Westbank (No. 2) was treated as being to its side elevation2. However, although this property has its front door facing Park Place, it has no other windows on this side, and so appears less like a front elevation than its equivalent on the appeal dwelling. As such, this decision does not justify the adverse effects of the proposal before me.

The conflict between the postal address and the situation on the ground may well cause uncertainty, for example for visitors, delivery services and those using navigation systems. The proposal would also provide a small amount of additional floorspace to the dwelling. Even so, I am not convinced that these provide sufficient reason to justify the harm that I have identified.

I understand that No. 2 was not consulted on the planning application. However, any failings regarding public consultation are not a matter for me. The Council’s Decision Notice contains inaccuracies and inconsistencies regarding pre-application advice and the decision-making process for the application. Nevertheless, these factors are not material to the planning merits of the proposal, or to my decision.

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