Appeal 6002616

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the: i) character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area; and ii) the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties with regard to the protection of privacy.

The area surrounding the site has a strong residential character, comprising a mix of modestly sized single and two-storey dwellings. The area has a spacious, low-density character with some vegetated verges with many properties exhibiting front gardens providing a verdant quality. The appeal property comprises an elongated bungalow occupying a large corner plot. It is of a unique design but does not look wholly out of place given the range of architectural forms within the vicinity.

The property has a front garden planted with a few shrubs which provides a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, particularly as it sits at a junction and is therefore visually prominent in the street scene.

The proposed development would include an upward extension to create an additional storey with a pitched roof. Whilst the single storey garage would be removed, the upward extension would not be subordinate to the existing property and would result in a building which is much larger than the surrounding properties in terms of massing due to its significant width. As such, it would not be in keeping with the prevailing character of properties in the vicinity and would erode the spacious quality of the area. Furthermore, the lack of articulation and monolithic appearance of the building would detract from the appearance of the area and thereby fail to achieve a high standard of design.

The proposal would involve the loss of the front garden area to car parking. The loss of this garden would erode some of the verdant character of the area and would introduce a car dominated frontage. The quantum of parking proposed is in excess of what would normally be found in a residential area comprising predominantly one and two storey dwellings and would therefore appear incongruous to the established residential character of the area. Whilst the level of parking proposed may be in line with the [name], this does not minimise the visual harm associated with it, particularly having regard to the prominence of the site.

My attention has been drawn to examples in the locality where there is front curtilage parking. However, these are broken up by vegetation and therefore do not appear as prominent in the street scene given the appeal sites’ position on a corner plot at a junction. Whilst an area of grass verge in the vicinity of the site would be retained, this would not be sufficient to soften the impact of the parked cars and thereby fail to mitigate the prominence of parking in the corner of the site.

The appellant considers that the proposal would provide a benefit by improving the appearance of what they describe in their appeal statement as a building which is ‘run-down and unattractive’. However, whilst the current state of upkeep of the property does somewhat detract from the appearance of the area, this is not as harmful as the effects of the proposed development as described above.

In conclusion, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. Accordingly, it would be contrary to Policy SP7 of the [name] Section1 Plan ([name] 2021) (NESSP), and Policies DM13 and DM15 of the Colchester Borough Local Plan 2017-2033 Section 2 ([name] 2022) (CBLP). These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure development meets a high standard of design and responds positively to local character, context and appearance. Policy DM13 also requires that extensions are compatible with the scale, appearance and character of the original dwelling, do not result in over-development, are in scale with surroundings and would be subordinate to the original dwelling in terms of design and setting. The proposed development would also be contrary to paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework which, amongst other matters, seek to secure good design and ensure development is visually attractive and sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment.

The appeal property shares a boundary with three residential properties. No [address] and No [address] sit to the sides of the property and No [address] is to the rear. The proposed upward extension includes windows at a first-floor level in the rear elevation of the property which serve bedrooms.

The proposed extension would be sited approximately 30m from No [address] and therefore is of a sufficient distance to avoid an unacceptable adverse impact on privacy, noting that the [name] identifies a minimum spacing distance of 25m.

No [address] and the majority of its rear garden are at a sufficiently oblique angle from the proposed rear windows and no windows are proposed on the side elevation of the first-floor which would look toward this property. As such, there would not be an unacceptable adverse impact on the privacy of the occupants of No 12.

One of the proposed first-floor windows would be in close proximity to the boundary with No [address]. However, the position of the existing garage at No 68 would limit the views into the garden, particularly the area closest to the existing house. Therefore, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the privacy of the occupants of No 68.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring properties with regard to the protection of privacy. Accordingly, the development is not in conflict with Policy SP7 of the NESSP and Policies DM13 and DM15 of the CBLP in this regard, which amongst other matters, seek to ensure development does not result in unacceptable impacts on privacy.

The proposed development would result in an improvement to the standard of accommodation for future occupants through larger bedrooms and kitchen facilities, together with increased space for management functions. However, these benefits would not outweigh the harm identified to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, and the associated conflict with the development plan I have identified above.

Concerns have been raised by interested parties regarding on-street parking, vehicle access and the amount of outdoor recreational space which would be provided. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to address these points in further detail.

As set out above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. [name] have found no harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers, there would be an overall conflict with Policy SP7 of the NESSP and Policies DM13 and DM15 of the CBLP due to the scale of harm in relation to the character and appearance of the area.

Overall, I conclude the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. I find there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.