Appeal 6003321

The appeal is dismissed.

The above description of development is taken from the planning application form. The description of the development on the Council’s decision notice, was revised and includes reference to the demolition of an existing outbuilding as follows: • Demolition of existing outbuilding with the erection of side double storey extension and single storey rear extension with the replacement of walls external material to red brick.

The revised description is clearer than that on the application form, and the appellant has used the revised description in their appeal form. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the revised description.

[name] 1 on the decision notice, relates to discrepancies and inconsistencies in the application plans. The appellant has submitted amended plans, as part of their appeal, to seek to address this refusal reason. Neither the Council nor interested parties have had the opportunity to provide comments on the amended plans. Therefore, were I to consider them, this could give rise to injustice. Despite this, the plans which were submitted with the planning application are sufficiently detailed for me to determine the appeal.

The main issues are: a) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and b) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupants of [address] (No 4) having regard to outlook.

The section of [address], in which the appeal property sits, runs broadly east to west and is characterised by two-storey semi-detached houses, in a linear form, on the south side of the road. There is generous spacing between pairs of houses. The road is narrow, not sufficient for cars to pass, with house frontages located at the back of a footway.

There is no footway on the northern side of this section of [address], which is bounded by a low wire fence with low vegetation and open fields beyond. The narrow road results in the street feeling slightly cramped.

However, the open fields to the north, and generous spacing between the pairs of semi-detached houses, help reduce the effect of the narrow road and contribute to the character of this section of [address].

The proposed two-storey side extension would significantly increase the width of the appeal property.

The proposed side extension would affect the symmetry of the appeal property with [address] (No 6), in terms of scale and layout. The change in scale and consequential reduction in the space between the appeal property and No 4 would disrupt the rhythm of the semi-detached properties on this section of [address].

In summary, the proposal does not respond positively to the existing mass and scale of properties along this section of street.

Also, the proposed reduced spacing, between the appeal property and No 4, would result in a more cramped feel at this location.

The appellant has referenced an existing two-storey side extension at [address] (No 10). This side extension is similar in scale to that of the appeal proposal. No 10 differs from the appeal proposal, in that it is located on a different section of [address], where the road is wider and verges are present on both sides of the road. This results in a more spacious feel to the street than at the appeal site.

The appellant considers that replacement of the non-standard construction with red brick construction would improve the appearance of the appeal property. The red brick would match No 6 which would result in symmetry of material across the external walls of the pair of semi-detached houses, but this would not outweigh the harm identified having regard to scale and layout.

For the reasons outlined above, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It is therefore in conflict with Policy 57 of the [name] 2015 ([name]) and Policy 2 of the Lyneham and Bradenstoke Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021 (Neighbourhood Plan). These policies require new development to be in keeping with existing building styles and scale.

Also, the proposal does not accord with guidance in [name] of the [name] (2024) as it does not appropriately respond to the existing character, scale and separation on the street. It is also contrary to guidance set out in paragraphs 131, 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek the creation of high quality buildings, that are sympathetic to the local character, and take into account local design guidance.

The Council refers to Policy 8 of the Neighbourhood Plan in its reason for refusal. However, there is no such policy in the copy of the Neighbourhood Plan which has been provided to me.

[site address] (No 5) is a semi-detached property, where the boundary with No. 6, runs from the joining point of the two dwellings. On the other side of the appeal property, the boundary with No 4 is offset by the width of the existing outbuilding to the side.

The side extension would result in a two-storey end elevation on the boundary with No 4. The proposed single-storey rear extension will protrude significantly beyond the rear elevation and extend across the full width of the garden of the appeal property.

To the side of No 4, is an access path to the garden, and a single storey outbuilding which extends to the boundary with the appeal site. There is a side door from No 4 opening on to the access path. There is little amenity value to the path, and the proposed side extension would be set back from the access path. The proposal would not be unduly overbearing for users of the path.

There is a window at first floor level on the side elevation of No 4. This has obscure glass and it is assumed that this is a bathroom window, consistent with the layout of the similar appeal property, and not a habitable room. The effect of the proposal on outlook from the first-floor window would therefore be limited. The proposal would not result in an unduly overbearing outlook from the side of No 4.

Nos 4, 5 and 6 have similar, generously sized, rear gardens. From the rear garden of No 4, effects from the proposal on outlook, will relate to the two-storey element of No 5 moving towards the boundary, and the single-storey rear extension protruding from the existing rear elevation along the boundary.

The proposed location of the two-storey extension, on the boundary with No 4, and in line with the rear elevation, is not an unusual situation in a residential estate. The generous rear garden to No 4 is such that the side extension will not result in an unduly overbearing outlook from the rear garden.

The single-storey rear extension is similar in scale to the existing rear extension to No 6. Therefore, the outlook from No 4 to the proposal, would be similar to the existing outlook from the appeal site to the extension at No 6, which I was able to observe during my site visit.

The length of the proposed single-storey extension represents only a small proportion of the length of the garden, and there are no other significant structures close to the garden boundary on either side.

The effect of the rear extension on the outlook from the rear garden of No 4, would therefore be limited.

The overall effect of the proposal, on outlook from No 4, would not result in an unduly overbearing appearance and appropriate levels of amenity would be retained. Therefore, the proposal would not be in conflict with Policy 57 of the [name] or [name] of the [name] (2024) in respect of outlook.

The appellant has referred to the replacement of non-standard construction materials as beneficial in terms of safety. However, they have not substantiated this point and consequently I am unable to give it any weight in favour of the appeal.

While the proposed development would not result in undue harm to the living conditions of occupants of No 4, it would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This harm is in conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.