Appeal 6000745

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site benefits from an extant planning permission for a single two-storey dwelling1. Based on the plans which are before me, the permitted home would have a mixed level roofline which would reduce significantly in height towards the rear of the building. Therefore, while the home would have considerable depth, its overall mass, and corresponding visual impact, would be limited and would complement the size and style of the existing homes at No’s 36 and 34.

In contrast, the appeal scheme before me seeks to modify the design of the proposed dwelling, particularly by adding greater floorspace at first floor level. I note that the proposal would be no taller overall than the permitted scheme, and that the eaves heights and overall height would conform with guidance contained within the Lichfield District Design Code (December 2024). 1 Council ref: 22/00160/FUL

However, the proposed site plan (ref P23-2466_DE_03), and the elevations comparison plan (ref PL02 Rev/) clearly demonstrate that the building would have much greater bulk and mass at first floor level than the previously approved home. This additional mass, in combination with the increase in gable heights to the front and rear, would result in a very sizeable dwelling which would inevitably appear as an overly dominant, imposing and incongruous edifice when seen within the context of No’s 36 and 34.

Views of the home would be somewhat screened by planting when travelling north east along [address] towards the site, and I note that the dwelling would be set back within its plot. However, it is clear that there would still be close range views of the front and side elevations from the street as one passes the site, and as such, the identified harm would be readily apparent. Any additional planting would not mitigate this harm to any meaningful degree.

The Council has noted that the site is located within the ‘Villages’ area type, as set out by the Lichfield District Design Code. The description includes reference to simple building forms and modest scales. However, I do acknowledge that, as one explores the village, a range of dwelling sizes and styles can be observed, including some examples of larger homes. Nevertheless, it is clear that the proposed dwelling would be primarily seen within the context of the existing houses at No’s 36 and 34 which immediately neighbour the appeal site. I have set out why this juxtaposition would result in harm in this instance.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with Core Policy 3 and Policy BE1 of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy (2015). The relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance. It would also conflict with the overarching aims of the Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document (December

and the Lichfield District Design Code which seek similar outcomes.

The site is immediately adjacent to the [site address] Conservation Area (the CA). Its significance, in so far as it is relevant to this appeal, is derived from the attractive appearance of the buildings within it and the evolution of the village over many years, including the open space which provides a pleasant and verdant setting to the south of the historic core.

While the appeal site is very close to the boundary of the CA, it is some distance from the buildings within it. Moreover, the proposed dwelling would not visually encroach upon the open space which provides the setting to those buildings. On that basis I am satisfied that the harm I have identified would not extend to the setting of the CA. I note that the Council does not disagree with that position.

For the reasons given, the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. While the proposed amendments to the design of the approved dwelling would provide future occupants with more space, this is a private benefit which attracts little weight. The increased size of the roof area would provide greater potential for the incorporation of solar panels. However, given the scale of the scheme, any such benefits would be very limited.

Accordingly, there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.