Appeal 6003925

The appeal is dismissed.

The other appeals on the site regarding a garage (Ref: 6003924), extensions to the host dwelling (Ref: 6003921) and a certificate of lawful development for an outbuilding (Ref: APP/K3605/X/26/3377488) are the subjects of separate decisions. I am the Inspector for the first two appeals and given that there are similarities in the matters, some of the language may be common to these decision letters.

This appeal relates to an application for [name]. Therefore, the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GPDO) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development on the basis of specific matters only. These include the impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises including overlooking, privacy and the loss of light and the external appearance of the dwellinghouse, including the design and architectural features of the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse. This appeal will be determined on this basis.

In these circumstances, there is no requirement to have regard to the development plan as there would be for any development requiring planning permission. Nevertheless, Policy CS17 of the [name] (2011) Policy DM2 of the Development Management Plan (2015), and the [name] (2024) are material considerations insofar as they relate to issues of amenity and appearance. Together they set criteria to achieve high quality design and protect the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

The main issues are:  The external appearance of the dwellinghouse.  The impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises

The parties agree that this consideration includes the effect in terms of the building’s relationship with adjoining or nearby properties and the street context. The Barton is within the [name], which is characterised by large dwellings set in their own grounds. Many of the properties have been extended and redeveloped and planning permission for examples at no 12 and 15 The Barton and [address] have been drawn to my attention. There is variation in the detailed design of the properties including roof forms and ridge heights.

In the vicinity of the appeal site the properties are generally detached, two-storey houses with hipped and pitched roofs and some properties have accommodation in these roof slopes served by limited dormers. The domestic houses fronting The Barton are clearly separate from and different to the character of the larger school buildings at [name] located on [address]. Whilst there may be a limited number of mansard roofs on [address], these are uncommon and located on this larger through road away from the appeal site. As such the prevailing character is of generous two storey properties which results in a sense of consistency with regard to height. This is an important shared characteristic that makes a notable positive contribution to the character of the area.

The proposed development would increase the eaves level and ridge height to this property. This would clearly add an additional storey to the building over part of its footprint and would result in a three storey house with a pitched roof above.

The bulk and scale of the proposed three storey building would appear oversized and visually jarring against the two storey appearance of the surrounding properties. This would harmfully erode the consistent scale which is an important characteristic of this area. As such, based on the site specific considerations, the proposed development would appear unacceptably dominant in this context and would harmfully erode the pattern of development. It would not therefore be sympathetic to local character.

Mountleigh is towards the end of a private cul de sac and has mature planting to its front boundary which provides some screening. Nevertheless, the development would be visible in views through the entrance gates and from neighbouring properties. As such this harm would be experienced. This is significantly different from the conclusions relating to previous applications for rear extensions (ref: 29/2284 and 2009/2015), and as such they do not alter these conclusions.

Therefore, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the external appearance of the dwellinghouse. Consequently, it would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (Framework) which seeks to achieve high quality buildings and places.

Whilst any overbearing effect is not specifically mentioned in the list of matters to be considered under criteria of AA.2 (3) (a) (i), it is clearly relevant to the amenity of adjoining premises. As such it is included as a relevant consideration for this appeal.

[address], 15 The Barton is a two storey dwelling located next to no 16. There is a dense evergreen hedge between the two properties’ gardens and I understand there is a window to a dual aspect kitchen along the side elevation. The officers’ report states that it would breach a 25 degree sight line above the proposed extensions. There are also rooflights to rooms where the use is not known.

The proposed three storey bulk would broadly align with built form at the adjoining property and the proposed extension would be experienced from a very limited number of windows. Although it would be seen from a side window, this room is dual aspect so it would retain open views and consequently the proposals would not appear overbearing. Therefore, the proposed development would not be unacceptably overbearing to the occupiers at no 15.

Consequently, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the amenity of adjoining properties, as such it would be in accordance with the Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing users. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in this regard does not alter that prior approval should not be granted for the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

The appeal scheme has addressed the reason for refusal for a previous application under Schedule 2, Part 1 Class AA of the GPDO. However, this does not overcome the harm found above with regard to the prior approval matters. Therefore it does not alter the conclusions of this appeal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.