Appeal 6001712

The appeal is dismissed.

The above description of development is taken from the application form. However, the proposal would be more accurately described as the erection of a two-storey building around the existing outdoor swimming pool.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of [address].

The character of the local area is predominantly residential. The appeal property is a large, detached dwelling located in a small cul-de-sac off [address]. The cul-de-sac is characterised by generous two-storey houses in spacious plots. The rear garden of the appeal property, including the existing swimming pool, adjoins [address]. Land levels fall from the appeal property towards [address].

The dwellings on [address] are generally smaller in scale than the adjoining properties on [address]. The appellant contends that several comparable two-storey and large ancillary outbuildings exist in the locality. However, based on my observations, the majority of outbuildings on [address], where they are visible from the street, are modest in scale and single-storey in nature. This makes the outbuildings subordinate to the main dwelling and therefore recessive in public views.

The proposal is for a two-storey building around the existing swimming pool, close to the boundary with [address]. The proposed building would be noticeably larger than the existing outbuildings in the street scene of [address], and its scale, height and footprint would be more akin to the dwellings on this road. The scale would be appreciable in the street scene of [address] where the character is clearly distinguishable from that in [address] where the dwellings are predominantly larger. Consequently, the proposal would fail to respect the established hierarchy of dwellings with smaller ancillary outbuildings on [address], and would be out of keeping and harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed building would be slightly elevated from [address] given the changes in land levels; this together with the scale of the proposal would mean that the proposed building would be unduly prominent, discordant and visually harmful to the character and appearance of [address], especially in views from the west.

There is a hedge around the rear garden of the appeal property which would provide some screening of the proposal; however, the proposed building would be visible both above this hedge, and through gaps within the hedge. Furthermore, the hedge cannot be relied upon to screen the development in perpetuity.

The evidence refers to a lawful development certificate (LDC) granted at the appeal property for a proposed building around the existing swimming pool. The LDC scheme is a legitimate fallback position and there is a real prospect that it would be implemented in the event that I dismiss the appeal. However, the building shown on the plans for the LDC is single-storey with a flat roof. The appeal proposal, by contrast, would be a two-storey building with a substantially taller pitched roof. The appeal scheme would therefore have a significantly greater, and more detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, relative to the LDC scheme. The schemes are materially different, including in terms of their impacts, and for this reason I have attached the fallback under permitted development limited weight.

I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of [address]. It would conflict with Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan (2018); this policy seeks amongst other things, to secure high quality design which addresses the character and scale of surrounding buildings. In this regard, the policy is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework in seeking to ensure that new development is sympathetic to local character.

The appellant refers to other developments in the surrounding area. However, full details of these have not been provided for comparison purposes, and in any event each scheme must be considered and determined on its individual merits.

The appellant considers that the proposal avoids harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. This is not disputed by the Council, and I find no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions on this matter. However, the absence of harm in this respect is a neutral factor.

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