Appeal 6000706

The appeal is dismissed.

There are some inconsistencies in the drawings, specifically the roof layout, and the positioning of windows between plans and elevations. However, these are sufficiently minor such that the scope of development is clearly understandable, and they do not present an obstacle to my determination of the appeal.

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

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached residential dwelling constructed in the latter half of the last century, as part of a small estate of similar properties. It is constructed from facing brickwork to its walls under a pitched and gabled, slated roof, and has a flat-roofed single storey garage to its side elevation. The property remains broadly as it was built, other than window and cladding replacement.

The property occupies a large and generally triangular site, located on the outer side of a sweeping 90-degree bend in the road, such that its’ front and gable elevations are extremely prominent in street views either looking east, or north, along [site address] . There is a belt of mature deciduous and coniferous trees which surround the appeal property and its attached neighbour, which then run along the north side of [site address] . The area therefore has the character of a mature and leafy residential neighbourhood.

The neighbouring semi-detached property has redeveloped its garage with a larger single-storey, flat roofed extension. Several similar properties on [site address] , including two immediately opposite the appeal site, have erected 2-storey extensions to their side elevations and have replaced their porches, in a contrasting modern and contemporary style.

The proposal would introduce a 2-storey extension to the side of the property’s gable, occupying the footprint of the existing garage, but projecting forward of the front elevation of the existing dwelling by around 1.9 metres. It also incorporates an enlarged footprint of the former porch area, with a single storey flat-roofed bay window to the side serving the former lounge. At roof level, the front elevation of this projecting 2-storey extension has been broken into a pitched roofed and gabled section which faces the highway, together with a box dormer sitting alongside it, on a section of sloping roof formed from the continuation of the dwelling’s main roof slope. These features would be both prominent, and at odds with the forms of the host dwelling.

As a result of the increased footprint of development, the parking area which was previously in front of the garage and porch, would be reduced in depth such that it may not be physically large enough, other than for a small car. The proposal would, therefore, introduce car parking to some of the remaining areas of the front garden, previously laid to lawn, in order to meet the required parking provision. In addition, the proposal suggests the erection of a new timber fence, to the south side of the extension, in line with the new projecting front elevation, which would reduce the effective depth available for parking. This would likely result in the need for the removal of part of the front boundary fence, the highway verge and extension of the drop kerbs to provide adequate access. No such detail is included in the drawings.

The principle of development is accepted. At my visit it was evident that there were several examples of other properties within the immediate area, which had erected 2-storey side extensions. However, these were all in a variety of formats which followed the recommendations for side extensions contained in the Council’s High- Quality Places: Supplementary Planning Document ([name]). Whilst being of contemporary design, and in contrasting materials to their host dwellings, these generally stay subservient to the original part of the dwelling, being set back from the line of the front elevation and below the ridge line, allowing the character of the original structure to still be discernible.

By contrast, the proposal would introduce significant 2-storey development, forward of the host dwelling’s principal elevation, with prominent gable and box dormer features at its roof level. This, together with the placing of the single storey bay in front of the principal elevation alongside the 2-storey extension, results in the loss of the host dwelling’s original structure being discernible. Further, due to the combination of the design of the extension, and the highly prominent position of the appeal property, on the outside of the bend in [site address] , the proposal would introduce an incongruous form of development into the street scene, at a key location, which I find would harm the character and appearance of the area and of the host dwelling.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with Policy DM16 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 2: Development Management and Site Allocations (the LPP2), and with guidelines E1, E2 and E3 of Part 8 of the [name]. These require, among other things, that development responds positively to the character, appearance and variety of the local environment, within and surrounding the site, in terms of its design, scale and layout. It should be sensitively related to the existing building and the character of the area, and should be subservient to the host dwelling, allowing the character of the original structure to still be clearly discernible.

The appellant notes that there are constraints on development on the appeal site, due to the presence of a 21-inch diameter Southern Water Authority trunk main, running within the garden of the appeal property, to the side of its garage and gable. However, neither the position of this trunk main, nor any specific limitations placed on development by the water company, are identified either on the drawings or within the appeal documentation. It is, therefore, not possible to determine how much effect the constraints would have over the submitted scheme, which might otherwise affect my determination of the appeal.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would be contrary to the development plan, read as a whole, and that the material considerations I outline above, would not outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.