Appeal 6003393

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed side extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is one half of a pair of semi-detached properties, which sit alongside a similar pair to the east side of [address]. In common with other houses on the cul-de-sac, [site address] is set back from the road and has a driveway to the side of the house. It has a single-storey garage extension over the driveway to the side, up to the shared boundary with [address].

[address] comprises semi-detached properties of a similar design, clustered in short rows around the cul-de-sac. They are of similar materials and are similarly spaced, giving the street a unified, coherent, and spacious character.

Some of the other houses in the Close have flat-roofed, single-storey side extensions, similar in nature to that at No 19. However, there remains a visual gap between adjacent pairs of semi-detached properties, contributing to the character of the area. There are no two-storey extensions between adjacent pairs.

A number of dwellings, to the ends of the short rows or on corner plots, do have two-storey side extensions. These are set back from front elevations, particularly at first floor level, and, to varying degrees, their roof lines are set down from those of the host dwellings.

The proposed development includes a first-floor side extension over the existing garage, up to the shared boundary with No 18. It would be slightly set back from the front elevation, and its front roof plane and ridge line would be set slightly below that of the main house.

The minimal set back, and set down of the roof plane, would do little to differentiate the proposed extension from the host dwelling. It would largely appear as a continuation of the existing building and would infill the characteristic visual gap, as it exists within the appeal site, with its neighbour. This would lead to greater visual coalescence with the adjoining pair of houses, a cramped appearance, and an increase in the perception of the group to the east of the Close reading as a terrace. This would be at odds with the visual coherence of the cluster of semi-detached properties around the cul-de-sac.

Whilst its paired neighbour, [address], has a two-storey side extension, this is set back from the front elevation to a greater extent. It also occupies a corner plot at the end of the short row. The proposed extension to No 19 would not be symmetrical with that of its neighbour, adding further to its incongruous nature. It would therefore not respond positively to, or enhance, the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

[address], on the opposite side of the cul-de-sac to the appeal site, has a single-storey side extension with a pitched roof, which adds to its volume. However, the roof does not overly impinge on the visual gap between neighbouring properties at upper level. Due to the differences in form, it being on the opposite side of the cul-de-sac, and the distance between the properties, there would be a very limited visual relationship between it and the proposed side extension at No 19.

The Council’s Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document, (the SPD) 2018, states that extensions which fill or encroach excessively on the space around a building may contribute towards an inappropriate “terracing effect” or can result in a cramped appearance, which is likely to be detrimental to the street scene. The proposed side extension would encroach on the characteristic gap between properties in [address], leading to a terracing effect. It would therefore be contrary to advice in the SPD.

For these reasons, the proposed side extension would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan, (the Local Plan) 2016, which seeks to ensure high quality development that contributes positively to local distinctiveness.

Policy EM1 of the Local Plan is cited on the Decision Notice. This relates to wider landscape character, rather than development within settlements, and appears to be of limited relevance to the appeal proposals.

My attention has been drawn to a situation where neighbouring dwellings have had two-storey side extensions constructed to the boundary at 4 and 6 Pinehurst. I am not aware how these extensions came about and, in any case, these are an indication of the terracing effect that can be created between homes and the harm that can be caused to the character and appearance of the area. I have come to a decision based on the facts of the case; this, and other comparators, do not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

The development would be constructed of materials matching those of the main house and buildings in the surrounding area, however, that would not mitigate the harm due to the form of the proposed side extension.

The appellant has raised concerns with the Council’s approach to, and handling of, the planning application. This is not a matter for my deliberation in the context of a planning appeal, and it has not been determinative to the appeal.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.