Appeal 6003659

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of development on the decision notice is different from the application form. The former referring to a two storey and single storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extension. I have taken all elements of the scheme into account.

The Council has not objected to the single storey side and rear extension. I have no reason to disagree. I have therefore focussed on the remainder of the scheme and, specifically, its effect on the character and appearance of the area. This is the main issue of the appeal.

The appeal building is a link detached dwelling on a corner plot at the junction of [site address] and [address]. Surrounding dwellings, which are also completely detached in some places, share distinct similarities in their scale, originality, siting and facing materials. Buildings are set back from and facing the road with parking across the frontage. Clear buildings lines are readable across both streets. These features combine to add a strong sense of consistency and spaciousness to the street scenes which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst sitting in line with the dwellings on [site address] and being of comparable height, the two-storey extension would project much further forwards, being overly prominent and breaching the street scene’s building line. Notwithstanding its position on the bend. The scheme would exceed the limitations for the width of side extensions set out by the [name] 2021. In so doing, the proposal would detract from the original proportions of the building. Moreover, its length and blank elevation close to the boundary would appear as an oppressive and non-subservient feature on a prominent corner of the street. The incongruity of the extension would be highlighted through not using hanging tiles.

Whilst the windows will differ to the existing situation, they would amount to modest alterations that would not result in an unacceptable level of change. I am unaware of the circumstances which prevailed at the time of the decision for Number 60 [site address] (No. 60) nor the prevailing policies and guidance. No. 60 is largely different from the prevailing street scene in appearance and siting and as a result is not sufficiently comparable to the appeal site’s context or circumstances. My findings do not therefore change.

With the above in mind, the proposal would unacceptably erode the spacious qualities of the street scene and that of the area’s consistency and originality in terms of form, scale, siting and materials. Such that it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. This would lead to conflict with Policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: [name] (Adopted) December 2013. Policies PSP1 and PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Policies, Sites and Places Plan 2017. Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan, and I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.