Appeal 6001484

The appeal is dismissed.

I have amended the description of the development in the banner heading above to that used on the decision notice and the appellant in their appeal statement. This is a more comprehensive description of the proposed development than that given on the application form and ensures that it accurately captures the scope of the proposal.

The proposal is for part demolition of the current house and garage and the erection of a two-storey extension, a new garage and remodelling. The Council has indicated that it has no objection to the garage or scale of the proposed extension and, based on the evidence, I have no reason to take a different view. The dispute between the parties relates to the appearance of the two-storey extension and remodelling, and these shall be the focus of my assessment.

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

The appeal property ( [site address] ) comprises a two-storey detached dwelling which incorporates a detached garage located on the corner of [site address] and [address]. Nearby properties, while varied in height and type, are mainly constructed with outward-facing material of stone or brick. This is not disputed by the appellant.

The exception to this is [site address] , which, whilst similar in height to its immediate neighbour, has an outward-facing material of mainly light-coloured render. It also features circular bulls-eye windows and a glass block rotunda which fronts [address]. These features display architectural characteristics associated with the [name] movement.

When travelling along [address] and [address], I saw that [site address] occupies a prominent position and that the external material and [name] features stand out within the immediate context. However, its roof reinforces the dwelling's connection with the prevailing local character, which comprises properties with varying pitched roof designs, including the properties currently under construction to the rear of the appeal site.

The proposed development would replace the current hipped roof with an [name] parapet flat roof, which the appellant contends would celebrate the architecture of the [name] era. Historic photographs1 submitted alongside the appeal show that [site address] was different in scale and material to its immediate neighbour. However, this is no longer the case in part, given that Mayfield is now two storeys and, whilst having been altered,2 it retains a pitched roof.

Policy DE1 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2011-2036 (the Local Plan) relates to promoting good quality design. It seeks to ensure that all development makes a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness, vernacular and character of the area, which reinforces, amongst other matters, local identity.

The appellant contends that views of the appeal property are restricted by existing mature trees, with the house shown to be largely obscured in photographs identified in Figures 2 and 3. [name] saw an evergreen hedge to the boundary which obscured the majority of the ground floor, the upper floor was readily visible when on [address]. It was also visible through the canopy of the trees and gaps between them, when on [site address] and [address], particularly as the majority of them were without leaf.

I note that the Council describes the appeal premises as not making a positive contribution to the street scene. However, I consider that even with the predominantly light coloured rendered exterior, the property, which currently has a roof design which reflects the defining characteristic of the area, does positively contribute to the street scene.

The removal of the pitched roof element and replacement with a parapet flat roof design would significantly change the character of the roofscape. The remodelled dwelling would therefore appear discordant with its immediate surroundings, which would fail to respect the local distinctiveness and street scene.

The appellant contends that the proposed development is necessary to update the property and provide flexible additional living accommodation to meet his current and future needs. However, I have nothing before me to demonstrate that its modernisation cannot be achieved through a design solution that would be more sympathetic to the character of the property and the surrounding area.

With the exception of the circular bulls-eye window and glass block rotunda, I have little before me to demonstrate that [site address] was originally designed to be [name]. Given that the proposed development was not refused on heritage grounds, I attach limited weight to the comments made by the Council’s Conservation Officer. 1 Image 1 and 2 2 ref. S14/0817

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Local Plan Policy DE1. This seeks to ensure development, amongst other matters, makes a positive contribution to the character of the area, which reinforces local identity.

There would also be conflict with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as it requires developments to be sympathetic to the local character.

The appellant has drawn my attention to Mayfield, which they describe as having been demolished and rebuilt3. I have nothing before me to demonstrate how it appeared prior to its demolition or the circumstances surrounding its presence. [name] have seen Mayfield, given the evidence before me, I cannot be certain that the property is comparable.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to [address], for which I have been provided with a decision notice, location plan and proposed elevations4. Whilst the proposed elevation plan shows a dwelling with largely light external elevations and a flat roof, image 5, [address] 1, shows that the immediate neighbour has a flat roof. This is not the case with the appeal before me, and therefore its context is materially different to the appeal before me. This example is therefore not directly comparable.

I have been provided with Plan 21 [name] relating to Priory Cottage5 and the decision notice in relation to Primrose Cottage6. While Plan 21 [name] shows a largely flat-roofed dwelling, and the decision notice confirms planning permission was granted for a new dwelling, I have not been provided with the circumstances relating to either site. As such, I cannot be certain that the circumstances are directly comparable to the proposals before me, which I have assessed on its own merits.

The absence of harm to the Stamford conservation area and nearby listed buildings, and harm to the amenity of nearby neighbours, is a neutral matter in the overall planning balance, as this would be a likely requirement of a well-designed development. Furthermore, the absence of objections has no bearing on the planning merits of the appeal before me.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.