Appeal 6000791

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Copperhayes is a modest single-storey dwelling set within a generous rural plot. Its simple form, low height and muted palette of materials give it a quiet, recessive presence within the landscape. Whilst the appellant considers the building to be without character or charm, its understated appearance is typical of dispersed rural properties in this part of [name] and contributes positively to the area’s low-key rural distinctiveness.

The proposal seeks to replace an existing single-storey sunroom with a two-storey link extension. The extension would introduce a markedly different architectural expression, including smooth render, extensive glazing, a projecting balcony and a conical roof form. These elements would contrast sharply with the dwelling’s pebble-dash walls, roof profile and modest fenestration.

Although contrast between old and new can be an appropriate design approach, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires such interventions to be sympathetic to local character and to reinforce a sense of place. In this instance, the combination of materials, the vertical emphasis of the proposed form and the introduction of a two-storey mass immediately adjacent to the existing dwelling would result in a visually assertive structure that competes with, rather than complements, the host building.

The appellant argues that the roofline would not be disrupted because the proposed ridge would sit below that of the main dwelling. However, the proposal’s roof form would nonetheless interrupt the dwelling’s simple profile. The balcony and its supporting structure would further accentuate the extension’s prominence, adding visual complexity that sits uncomfortably with the restrained character of the existing dwelling.

I acknowledge the appellant’s view that the existing sunroom is of poor quality and that the proposal would improve energy efficiency, insulation and overall sustainability. These are positive attributes. However, the Framework makes clear that development should not detract from the overall quality of the area, and such benefits do not outweigh the harm arising from the extension’s scale, massing and design.

The appellant also contends that surrounding dwellings are larger, more contemporary and “quirky”, and that the existing dwelling is out of keeping. Whilst there is some variety in the area, this does not establish a prevailing character that would justify the scale and form of the appeal proposal. Rural distinctiveness here derives less from stylistic uniformity and more from the modest, low-key presence of individual buildings within the landscape. The proposal would erode that quality.

The site is not subject to specific designations, and the appellant notes that there are no public footpaths and limited visibility from the wider landscape. However, the absence of long-distance views does not negate the need for development to respect local character. The extension would be clearly visible from the road and within the site itself, where its height, massing and contrasting design would appear incongruous. As such, the development would not conserve the character or appearance of the landscape.

For these reasons, the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the appeal building and the surrounding area. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policies DEV20 and DEV23 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 – 2034, which require development to be well designed, locally distinctive and respectful of landscape character.

I note that the proposal would not result in harm to neighbouring living conditions or highway safety. However, the absence of harm in these respects does not outweigh the harm identified in relation to character and appearance.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.