Appeal 6003520

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant considers that much of the work necessary to construct the proposal has already been carried out pursuant to another scheme. However, the application form states that the development has not begun. For clarity, I have considered this appeal based on the plans before.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Properties on this side of [address] are generally detached dwellings of comparable height. They are set back consistently from the footway behind driveways and front gardens. Some, including the appeal property, have a front outrigger protruding from the main building, forming an L‐shaped plan. The dwellings occupy higher ground levels than the footway, and the pattern of layout and siting contributes to an orderly and spacious street scene, reinforced by the wide-ranging views permitted by the topography of this road.

Where present, integrated garages are either contained within the envelope of the dwelling or protrude only a modest depth forward of the front elevation. In these cases, the forward protrusion accommodates a small terrace area, as seen at 7, 9, and [address].

On the opposite side of the road, properties follow a similar design approach. Some have flat‐roofed garages that project to varying degrees. However, the ground level slopes downwards from the footway, and as a result, these buildings and their garages appear significantly lower in overall scale and massing. This maintains a sense of openness.

The proposal would introduce a flat-roofed extension that extends at lower ground level beyond the front wall of both the main building and its front outrigger. Even if parts of the sides and rear of the garage structure have been previously permitted and built, due to its siting and the change in levels, the additional height and mass of the proposal would obscure parts of the property’s front elevation when viewed from the footway. This would result in an over-dominant effect, harming the overall appearance of the building. The use of matching materials would do little to overcome this impact.

Although the projection beyond the outrigger is modest, the new front wall would breach the broadly consistent building line along this side of [address]. This would erode the existing sense of spaciousness and orderly siting pattern, resulting in harm to the [address] streetscene.

I have been referred to an example of a garage said to have been constructed at [address] in Rottingdean. However, this is located some distance from the appeal site and would therefore be seen in a different streetscene and context to the proposal before me. This has not therefore led me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

Concluding on this main issue, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policy DM21 of Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two (2022) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure extensions are well designed, scaled and sited in relation to the property to be extended and to the surrounding area.

The Council has not identified any harmful loss of light to neighbouring properties. Nonetheless, avoiding harm to living conditions of neighbouring occupiers would be an expectation of any such development. Accordingly, this carries neutral weight in my consideration of the appeal.

For the reasons given, the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.