Appeal 6003199

The appeal is dismissed.

There are 3 elements to the proposed house extension, namely a single storey rear extension, single storey front extension and a 2 storey side extension. There is no disagreement between the parties over the acceptability of the single storey rear extension. On that basis my assessment will focus on the impact of the 2 storey side and single storey front extension.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposed extensions on the living conditions of [address] with regards to daylight and sunlight.

[address] is a lengthy suburban street consisting of a mix of semi-detached 2 storey and single storey properties. Properties sit on well-proportioned plots with front and rear gardens and there is a relatively uniform building line. The appeal property is a 2 storey detached dwelling sited on a larger plot with a detached garage to the side and detached sunroom to the rear. The appeal property is therefore somewhat of an anomaly within the street scene.

The appeal scheme proposes substantial extensions to the front and side of the property. Except for the narrow gap to the boundary with [address] the extended dwelling would effectively fill the full width of this large plot. This would more than double the width of the dwelling in terms of 2 storey development. Furthermore, due to the substantial increase in width, a significant increase in the height of the roof is required to maintain the existing pitch of the dwelling. The notable increase in height of the dwelling adds to its scale and massing which would be most obvious when viewed against the adjacent dormer bungalow, No 318. No attempt has been made to make the extension appear subservient and consequently the extension completely overwhelms the original dwelling.

The scale of the proposed dwelling would appear dominant and obtrusive when compared to the more modest and uniform semi-detached properties nearby within [address]. Rugby Borough Council has a [name] contained within the [name] & [name] and [name]. Paragraph 7.18 states that extensions which are too large in relation to the existing dwelling, or out of keeping with the street scene can have a detrimental impact on the character of the building and the surrounding area. This is the case with the appeal scheme.

The addition of a large single storey front extension further adds to the dominance of the proposed extensions within a street which has a relatively uniform building line. The inclusion of a flat roof on the front extension adds to its jarring appearance within the street scene given the lack of such large flat roof extensions visible in the immediate vicinity.

The appellant has indicated that there is no dominant architectural form and the extension reflects the diversity of dwelling types with the road. I consider that there is a greater level of uniformity than suggested. For example, to the east of the appeal site there are uniform semi-detached bungalows (Nos. 318 – 332) and to the west there is a run of uniform semi-detached 2 storey dwellings.

With the removal of various outbuildings including a detached garage and sunroom the appellant has articulated that appeal site would appear less disjointed. Whilst this may true, the same could be achieved with a more sympathetic extension. I therefore only attach very limited weight to this argument.

My attention has been drawn to single storey front extensions at 248, 271 and [address]. I have not been provided any details regarding the history of these additions. However, none of these additions are directly comparable to the appeal proposal given that there is no flat roof extension of a comparable size.

I conclude that the proposal by virtue of its scale, massing and detailed design would be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with policy SDC1 of the Rugby Borough Council Local Plan (RBCLP). Amongst other matters, this policy seeks to secure high quality design that responds to the scale, density and design of the area in which it is situated.

The proposed extension brings development much closer to the side elevation of No 318. Concerns have been raised that this will result in a loss of light to the first floor room with a side facing window in No 318. As this is a west facing window the proximity of the extension would reduce both the levels of sunlight and daylight entering through this window. However, there is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not this window serves a habitable room.

Having viewed No 318 on site, it is evident that the side facing window is fitted with clear glazing which means it is unlikely that the window serves a bathroom. However, given the presence of a front dormer in close proximity to the side facing window it appears that the window is a secondary window to a bedroom. [name] have accepted the side facing window would receive reduced levels of light, I am satisfied that the large dormer window would provide an adequate level of light for the bedroom.

I conclude that the proposal would have no adverse impacts on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 318. There is therefore no conflict with policy SDC1 of the RBCLP with regards to the sentence that seeks to safeguard the living conditions of existing and future occupiers.

The appellant has set out 4 benefits of the scheme which can be summarised as an efficient use of land, improved living accommodation, compliance with key development plan policies and the absence of demonstrated planning harm. Firstly, I have identified harm to the character and appearance of the area and conflict with development plan policy SDC1 meaning only minimal weight can be attached to these matters. I accept that the extension would improve living conditions for the occupiers however an alternative less harmful scheme could also improve living conditions. I can therefore only attach limited weight to this benefit. I accept that the scheme makes an efficient use of land however this is the case with every house extension and therefore only limited weight can be attached to this benefit. Whether considered individually or cumulatively these benefits do not outweigh the high level of harm to the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.