Appeal 6001144

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw on my visit that most of the two-storey rear extension has already been constructed. From my observations it appeared to broadly reflect the submitted plans. Nonetheless, for the avoidance of doubt, I have assessed the development as shown on the submitted plans and determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and • protected species, with specific regard to bats.

The appeal property occupies a generous plot fronting [address] and is set apart from other houses and buildings, with open fields on all sides. Its isolated position within a generally flat landscape means the front and side elevations are highly prominent in short and medium-range views, despite roadside hedging.

The host dwelling was a detached, two-storey red-brick house of simple, traditional form. While it included some rear extensions, those additions were fairly modest, and the overall form and legibility of the original house was appreciable.

The rear extension subject to this appeal, extends to the full height and width of the host dwelling. It constitutes a substantial enlargement and, by replicating the ridge and eaves height, does not read as a subservient addition. Instead, it forms a unified mass that materially increases the overall scale of the dwelling, effectively doubling its size. This approach conflicts with the Council’s User Guide for Householder Development (2019) 1, which seeks to ensure that extensions are proportionate and subservient to the property being extended.

Although the rear extension reflects the general form of the host dwelling and employs matching materials, it fails to preserve the character or legibility of the original house. Its excessive depth results in a building that is disproportionately deep in relation to its width. In combination with the rear gables, this creates a rear-heavy composition that appears unbalanced and draws attention away from the original house. Consequently, the extension appears out of keeping and renders the dwelling, as a whole, visually intrusive. This harmful impact is further increased by the relocation of the front door and porch to the side elevation.

The appellant refers to a previous application for a rear extension at the appeal site, which the Council considered acceptable in terms of design and scale, with refusal due solely to its impact on bats. [name] acknowledge that assessment, the appeal development differs in key respects. The ridge line of the previous scheme was set below that of the main roof. The previous scheme also reduced in height from two storeys to a single-storey element towards the rear. Unlike, the appeal development, these features ensured that it would read as a subordinate addition rather than a unified enlargement of the host dwelling.

Accordingly, although the rear extension reflects aspects of the host dwelling’s scale, form and appearance, it does not read as a subordinate addition and as a result significantly harms the character and appearance of the host dwelling. It conflicts with Policy CS.20 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011 to 2031 (2016) ([name]), which seeks to ensure that extensions will be of an appropriate scale and subservient in relation to the existing building, taking into account the site location and the cumulative impacts of previous extensions and development on the site where appropriate.

The appellant has drawn my attention to several examples of large extensions that have been approved by the Council in the surrounding area. While there are superficial similarities, from the evidence before me, the circumstances of those schemes differ materially from the appeal development. On my visit, the cited properties were notably less prominent, exhibited different forms and features, and occupied plots of varying size and character, meaning they presented differently within the public realm. The schemes themselves also vary. In particular, the development at [address] involved the replacement of an existing barn with annexe accommodation, which is not comparable to the appeal scheme. I therefore afford these examples limited weight. Each scheme must be determined on its own merits, specific context and circumstances.

The approval at [address] is, relatively speaking, the closest in characteristics to the appeal development. However, that property lies on the edge of Marcliff within a more developed context. The Council’s officer report explains that the extension at [address], whilst not wholly subservient, is set lower than the existing ridge height of the property, which is not the case for the appeal development. Moreover, it does not incorporate a set of rear gables, allowing it to read as an addition rather than competing with the host dwelling. This example therefore does not alter my findings regarding the harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. 1 Appendix 2: Alterations and [name]

Although large dwellings of varied form and character exist within the wider area, the incongruous form, massing and design of the resultant house cause limited but identifiable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, albeit this harm is localised.

Accordingly, the appeal development conflicts with [name].5, CS.9 and AS.10 of the [name] and Policy ENV9 of the Bidford on-Avon Neighbourhood Plan 2011-31 (2017) (NDP). These seek to ensure that all forms of development will improve the quality of the public realm and enhance the sense of place, reflecting and minimising any impact on the character and distinctiveness of the locality, including landscape character.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has submitted an amended [name] and Impact Assessment2 to address the Council’s second reason for refusal. The appellant also maintains that sufficient information has been provided to enable the local planning authority to assess the implications for protected species.

Nevertheless, whether or not the proposed mitigation would have been capable of protecting the bats, most of the two-storey rear extension has already been constructed, and there is no substantive evidence before me to show that the works were carried out in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures set out at Section 5 of the [name] and Impact Assessment. In the absence of such evidence, I cannot be satisfied that bats were adequately protected during the construction process or that the appeal development has not resulted in harm to them.

Accordingly, based on the evidence before me, the development conflicts with Policy CS.6 of the [name] and Policy ENV10 of the NDP, which seek to ensure that proposals minimise impacts on biodiversity.

The development would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. It has not been demonstrated that there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.