Appeal 6003672

The appeal is dismissed.

There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene of The Dreys.

The Dreys is a residential cul-de-sac of mostly similar semi-detached houses. Some houses have been altered and extended through the addition of front porches and extensions both to the side and front. The street scene is thus not uniform. The layout is also varied with some dwellings having deeper front gardens that can readily accommodate vehicle parking while others, including the appeal dwelling, have visibly smaller front gardens. Nevertheless, noticeable gaps between the pairs of dwellings, coupled with boundary hedges, open grassed areas and the gardens themselves provide a well vegetated, open and spacious layout.

The appeal dwelling is the last house on the southern side of the cul-de-sac. It has a driveway to the side of the dwelling, providing access to a garage at the side/rear but is particularly constrained to the front owing to the front/side boundary curving to allow space for a vehicular access to communal garages and a parking area.

The proposed extension would occupy most of the width of the dwelling and would project some 2.9m in front of the main façade. It would have a mono-pitch, lean-to roof and the proposed windows would be in the same relative positions as those in the existing front elevation. The design would be simple and in keeping with the host dwelling. However, its depth, coupled with its position on the front elevation, would result in the extension appearing out of proportion with the host building, leading to an addition that dominated the main facade and detracted from the balanced proportions and appearance of the dwelling, particularly when viewed from the side. Appeal Decision Ref: 6003672

Moreover, the extension would occupy a significant proportion of the front garden, leaving a small triangle of ground to the front, with a pinch point of about a metre between the boundary and the building, and a narrow strip of ground between the side elevation of the extension and the driveway. This layout would appear cramped on the plot and would result in built development being uncharacteristically close to the street, in the generally more open and spacious street scene.

Owing to the angle of the building, its position behind an open grassed area and because the eye is drawn towards the adjacent access to the garages and parking area it would be particularly conspicuous in the street scene. Overall, the proposed extension would therefore overcrowd the plot frontage and be unacceptably dominant, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and The Dreys.

I note that there are other front extensions on other dwellings in The Dreys, including at No 28. However, these appeared smaller and/or shallower than the proposed extension and hence appeared in proportion with and subservient to the host dwellings. Moreover, the front garden at No 28, which has a substantial single and two storey front/side extension, is significantly larger and deeper than at the appeal dwelling, meaning that the extension does not result in a cramped layout on the plot or appear overwhelming in the street scene. I do not therefore find this example readily comparable with the appeal proposal.

It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed extension would have a materially detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene of The Dreys. In consequence, it would conflict with Policies GEN2 and H8 of the Uttlesford District Local Plan, 2005. Taken together and amongst other things these expect new development, including home extensions, to be compatible in scale, form and layout with the original and surrounding buildings and safeguard important environmental features in their setting, thus helping to reduce the visual impact of new buildings.

The Parish Council raises further concerns regarding the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of occupiers of the adjoining dwelling. The Council’s delegated report also raises this issue, but it does not form a reason for refusal. In the absence of further evidence, it is not clear whether any effect would be materially detrimental. However, in view of my findings regarding the main issue the appeal must in any case fail.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.