Appeal 6001121

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling located on a prominent corner plot within a primarily residential area. There are a variety of house types and some small-scale commercial development nearby. However, the majority of the dwellings in the immediate context of the appeal site are detached dwellings on modest, regularly spaced plots. Front facing gables and a mix of brick and tile hanging, along with a relatively consistent relationship with the street, provide a degree of uniformity and cohesiveness which is a positive feature of the area.

The appeal site is somewhat anomalous in this context. The overall size and width of the plot within which the appeal property is located is greater than those which surround it. The existing dwelling has been extended previously and appears larger and wider at two storeys than the majority of those which surround it. However, open garden space remains to the south of the dwelling and as such it does not appear excessively large or cramped in its plot. It is set away from the southern boundary of the plot which ensures it is not overly prominent or imposing when experienced from [address].

As a result of its overall size and scale in addition to the existing mass of the building, the proposed extension would result in a dwelling which would be significantly larger than those around it. The building would appear excessively wide when viewed from public vantage points from both the front and rear. This would be exacerbated by the extruded roof of the ground floor front extension. The resultant wide, linear building would appear incongruous in the street scene and would conflict with the more compact pattern of development which surrounds it.

The distance from the proposed extension to the southern boundary of the site would vary along its length. However, the southwest corner of the extension would be in very close proximity to the boundary and the adjacent pavement. As a result, given the overall scale of the resultant building it would appear cramped in its plot, particularly when viewed from the west. The closer relationship with the street combined with the largely blank side elevation of the extension would result in an imposing and prominent feature within the street scene.

The front elevation and roof of the extension would be set back and down from those of the host dwelling by a modest amount. However, this minor degree of subservience would not address the harm which would occur as a result of the overall size and scale of the resultant building.

Even though the building already contrasts with those around it, the proposed changes would result in a more significant degree of conflict with the prevailing pattern and form of development in the context of the appeal site, such that it would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area.

I have taken account of other extensions to dwellings in the vicinity of the appeal site and those drawn to my attention by the appellant in other parts of Yateley. However, none of these are the same as the appeal scheme and there are limited parallels with the examples provided.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy NBE9 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006 ([name] 2009), Policy GEN 1 of the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006 [name] ([name] 2020) and Policy YDNFP4 of the Yateley, Darby Green and Frogmore Neighbourhood Plan 2020 – 2032 ([name] 2022). Together these seek to ensure that developments achieve a high standard of design and respond to local distinctiveness and character.

I recognise that no objections were received in respect of the proposals and that the proposed annexe would meet the needs of the appellant and their family, making efficient use of the land. However, the benefits of the proposal are largely private, and personal circumstances cannot be taken into account. Therefore, the material considerations are not sufficient to outweigh the harm which I have identified.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations including the Framework do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.