Appeal 6003421

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the Decision Notice of the Council as it describes the development in a more concise manner than that on the application form. Whilst there is no record of a formal agreement to the change in front of me, given that the same description is utilised by the appellant on their appeal form I am satisfied that neither party is prejudiced by this course of action.

The main issues in this case are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 54 and [address], with regards to privacy.

The appeal property is a two-storey end-terraced dwelling located within a residential area. [address] is characterised by brick-built, two-storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings which are of a similar design and appearance. Properties are set back from the road and consequently have front garden areas of a reasonable size.

There is a general uniformity arising from the predominant use of red brick on dwellings of a similar age and appearance combined with the regularity of their spacing. The avenue has a relatively green and spacious appearance with hedgerows, trees and other soft landscaping within some front gardens. Due to the spacious gaps between properties the sense of greenery is enhanced by views through to rear gardens along the Avenue. It was apparent during my site visit the appeal property sits considerably higher than its neighbour, [address].

The proposed single-storey side and rear extension would effectively fill the full width of the plot, and the extension has a footprint notably larger than that of the existing dwelling. The proposed extension is of such a scale that it would visually overwhelm the appearance of the dwelling and would dominate the spacious area around the house. Given its size and elevated position, the proposed extension with an incongruous flat roof would appear unduly prominent thereby materially harming the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has highlighted a number of other extensions in the wider street scene. However, none of these extensions are comparable to the appeal scheme. They are either single-storey flat roof side extensions of a much more modest scale or two-storey extensions which are not comparable.

I have been referred to a previous appeal decision on the site (ref: APP/C3240/D/23/3330899). That scheme included a similar single-storey side and rear extension and also incorporated a large rear outbuilding. This appeal was dismissed by virtue of the harm to the character and appearance of the area. In this earlier decision the Inspector highlighted “the flat roof of the proposed extension would draw undue attention to itself as an incongruous feature, due in part to the overall scale of the extension”. The roof design and extension size remain unaltered on the current appeal scheme. Given that there has been no notable change to the proposed extension since the previous appeal decision, I find no conflict between my findings and those of the previous Inspector.

The Council have raised concerns over the proposed external materials to be used in the development. However, I am satisfied that any harm could be adequately mitigated through the imposition of an appropriately worded condition, if I were minded to allow the appeal, that could ensure that the external materials would be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area.

In conclusion, the proposed development would be unduly prominent and detract significantly from the uniform and spacious qualities of the locality. The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the area which is contrary Policies BE1, BE2, SP1 and SP4 of the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan (TWLP). Amongst other matters, these policies indicate that development which respects and responds positively to its context and enhances the quality of the local and natural environment will be supported including extensions which are not disproportionate in size.

The proposed extension would result in development adjacent to the boundary with both Nos 54 and 58. The position of side facing windows and their proximity to the boundaries could lead to a loss of privacy for the occupiers of both adjoining properties. However, I am satisfied this harm could be adequately mitigated through the imposition of an appropriately worded condition, if I were minded to allow the appeal, that could ensure the proposed windows in the side elevations would be obscurely glazed.

Consequently, the proposal would not result in any significant harm in respect of privacy and in this regard, it would not be contrary to policies BE2, SP1 and SP4 of the TWLP, which amongst other matters, seek to protect residential amenity.

I am sympathetic to the circumstances of the occupant of the property and appreciate that the proposed development would meet the specific needs of the occupier which would be a notable benefit. However, whilst this is something that weighs in support of the proposal, it does not outweigh the significant harm to the character and appearance of the area identified above.

I note the lack of objection to the scheme and the support received from the neighbouring occupier at No. 58. [name] have found the proposal would not adversely harm the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining properties in terms of privacy, this is a neutral factor and does not outweigh the significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

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. It is therefore necessary and proportionate to dismiss the appeal.