Appeal 6002433

The appeal is dismissed.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development also includes alterations to the external materials and fenestration of the dwelling. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

The Council’s decision notice lists the plans which accompanied the application. The list includes BEB22 07 “[name]”. However, it is clear from the officer’s report that the application was amended prior to determination and that the decision was based on drawing no: BEB22 07 [name]. I have therefore taken the reference number on the decision notice to be a typographical error and have based my decision on the set of plans including BEB22 07 [name].

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

The appeal property is at the end of a row of ten linked-detached houses on the western side of [address]. The properties have a consistent appearance of uniform design and spacing and are set on a common building line on staggered elevation as they climb the hill southwards from the appeal site.

The character of this part of [address] is formed by this consistency in design. The dominant gabled frontages of the properties, equidistantly spaced, form the defining character of the street scene. Each property has a single storey garage alongside, linking it with the neighbouring house, and many along the row have extended at first floor above these garages, including the appeal property. However, each of these existing extensions is set back significantly from the front elevation of the house such that in views along the street they are hidden, subservient features which maintain the character described above. In fewer cases, properties on the opposite side of the road have had similar extensions, all with similarly large set-backs.

In contrast, the appeal proposal would provide for a second dominant gable on the front of the property with only a marginal set-back from the existing gable. The rhythm of the street scene would be harmfully interrupted by this dominant addition which would, as a consequence of its scale, bulk and marginal first floor set-back, detract from the existing property and the uniformity of the street scene which defines its character. The proposed single storey front extension would add to the bulk and dominance of the proposal.

The Council raises no concerns with the proposed rear extension nor the alterations to the property’s materials and fenestration. I note the relationship between the properties and the variety of external facing materials in the locality and have no reason to reach a different conclusion in either respect.

The appellants draw my attention to other extensions added to dwellings in the vicinity. I have been provided with the addresses of two, at Nos 21 and [address] and viewed both during my site visit. I do not consider the extension at no 21 to be comparable given that the property is not in a row of uniformly designed properties. The site characteristics at no 39 have more in common. I note, however, that the extension there has adopted a fresh design approach, appreciably in contrast to the original house and has not, as in this case, sought to replicate original design features. I am not aware of the circumstances which led to the grant of planning permission at no 39 which appears to be an isolated example of its type. Accordingly, I cannot draw any direct comparison between these examples and the proposal before me that weighs in the appeal’s favour.

I therefore find the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with Policies CS11 and CS12 of the [name] 2006-2031 (2013) which require, amongst other things, development to respect spaces between buildings and integrate with streetscape character.

For the reasons given above, the proposal does not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations that indicate I should take a decision other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.