Appeal 6001418

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site comprises a pair of two-storey, semi-detached houses at the head of a small horseshoe-shaped offshoot of [address]. It is at the centre of a cluster of five pairs of similar properties, which are set back from, and angled towards, the small loop of road. The pairs are similarly, although not identically, spaced between frontages.

[address] (No 34) has an irregularly shaped, single-storey side extension, running the full depth of the building and up to the angled, shared boundary with [address]. [address] (No 32) has a narrow single-storey side extension.

The appeal property is in an established residential area of similarly scaled, semi-detached houses, which is identified in the Council’s Townscape Assessment as a postwar suburb. Properties of a similar design and materials to the appeal dwellings are located around this section of [address] and on [address], opposite.

In addition to following the road pattern, similar properties are grouped around a number of lawned communal areas and a cul-de-sac leading off the main roads. Notwithstanding the varied layout and relationships between buildings, the immediate area is characterised by semi-detached houses of uniform design and materials. They are predominantly evenly and well-spaced, giving the area a uniform, spacious and open character. Although of different designs and materials, semi-detached properties in the wider area share similar attributes, although some are more closely spaced.

Where they exist, side extensions to properties of a similar design to the appeal site are generally of single storey, of a modest size, and do not impact unduly on the spacious character of the area or the visual gaps between buildings. There are isolated instances of properties where external materials have been changed, or of houses with larger side extensions, but these are limited in number and are not a defining characteristic of the area.

The proposed side extension to No 32 would come within less than 1m of the shared boundary with the neighbouring [address] (No 30), at both ground and first floor level. It would significantly reduce the characteristic visual gap between the two properties, and lead to a terracing effect, which would be discordant within the street scene and wider area.

The existing single storey side extension to No 34 already occupies the area between the flank wall of the house and shared boundary with the neighbouring property; however, the proposed extension at first floor level would come within less than 1m at its closest point. It would reduce the characteristic gap between it and its neighbour, when viewed from the street, albeit to a lesser degree than the impact on the gap between Nos 30 and 32.

The Council’s Borough Wide Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, (the SPD) 2020, seeks to promote design excellence. Principle 10.3 states that important gaps between buildings should be maintained, and that a minimum gap of 1m between the building and the side boundary should normally be retained to provide for light, access and servicing. Principle 10.1 states that extensions which erode gaps which contribute to visual amenity and the character of the street scene will be resisted. The proposed development does not, therefore, accord with advice in the SPD.

The proposed development, by virtue of its scale and proximity to the side boundaries of the site, would harm the uniform, spacious and open character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposed development would conflict with Policy QP3 of the Borough Local Plan, 2022, which seeks to deliver high quality design which respects and enhances the character of an area. It would also not accord with Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to achieve well-designed places.

The proposed extension would be of matching materials and may be subservient to the host dwellings, as well as maintaining a degree of symmetry to the pair. No objections were received in response to the planning application. There would be no impacts on the living conditions of the occupants of nearby buildings, nor would there be unacceptable loss of usable outdoor amenity space at the appeal site. However, these are not factors which weigh in favour of allowing the appeal and do not diminish the harm that I have found on the main issue.

My attention has been drawn to the two-storey side extension at [address]. That dwelling is on a spacious corner plot and, although reduced, there remains a noticeable visual gap between [address] and the neighbouring properties. It is therefore of limited use as a comparator. I have come to a decision based on the facts of the case and this comparison does not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

My attention has also been drawn to a small number of houses, similar to those at the appeal site to the north of the junction of Princess and [name], which are more closely spaced. However, they are atypical of the wider group, and the general open character of the area is maintained due to their staggered building line. These examples do not lead me to an alternative conclusion in this case.

Similarly, my attention has been drawn to examples of more closely spaced semi-detached properties in the area. No details have been provided for each case, such as their locations relative to the appeal site or how they are directly comparable with the proposed development. There is a variety of spacings between buildings in the wider area, but those properties of a similar design, which form a coherent group with the appeal properties, are generally more well-spaced.

The appellant has raised concerns with the Council’s approach to and handling of the planning application. This is not a matter for my deliberation in the context of a planning appeal, and it has not been determinative to the appeal.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.