Appeal 6003929

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s emerging Winchester District Local Plan 2020-2040 (DLP) was found sound subject to modifications, following examination, on 11 March 2026. The Council included reference to emerging Policy D2 of the DLP when determining the planning application for the appeal proposal. Given the advanced and favourable progress of the DLP, and expectation of its imminent adoption, I afford significant weight to emerging Policy D2 in this decision.

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

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling located on a corner plot within the [name] development. I understand from the information before me that the appeal property was specifically designed for corner locations and as such has a different character to other properties along [address]. The appeal property has an attached single storey garage accessed from [address].

The appeal proposal is to erect a first-floor extension over the existing garage to provide an additional bedroom and living space. Materials would match those used on the existing dwelling. The Council determined that the proposal would neither accord with the [name] (KBDC) or the established locally distinctive character of [address].

The KBDC was incorporated into the original outline planning permission to guide the design and quality of the [name] development. It divides the development into character areas arranged mainly by density. The appeal site is within the [name] character area, which is described in the KBDC as a higher density area characterised by a mix of terraces and semi-detached dwellings defining streets and spaces, key buildings at junctions and corners and set pieces that reinforce the formal layout with uniform set backs; buildings become simpler with cleaner formal lines, symmetry and regular openings.

The appellant contends that the Council has misapplied the KBDC by over relying on character area descriptions that do not apply to the appeal property. Specifically, that the requirement for regular gaps between dwellings appears only in the descriptions of the Suburban and [name] character areas, and not in the [name] character area. I accept that the descriptions for the Suburban and [name] areas make explicit reference to gaps between dwellings, whereas the [name] character area description does not.

However, the KBDC is a document that establishes broad principles and character objectives across the development. It does not prescribe every aspect, and the absence of an explicit prohibition does not automatically translate into acceptance in a character area. The key question is whether the proposal responds positively to the character of the area, as required by the development plan policies, not merely whether it falls outside the literal terms of one element of the KBDC.

Furthermore, paragraph 9.1.2 of the KBDC, which relates to the [name] character area, describes it having amongst other aspects, cleaner formal lines, symmetry and regular openings. [name] acknowledge the appellant's argument that regular openings ordinarily refer primarily to window and door rhythms, the phrase also reasonably describes the ordered spatial composition of the street, including the consistent rhythm of building masses and the lower elements between them. The KBDC read as a whole, including its overarching design principles, supports an expectation that the established character of each area should be respected and not materially eroded.

In this regard, the most significant characteristic of [address] as a street is the consistent and unbroken rhythm of two-storey houses with single-storey side garages. This pattern runs the full length of the street and is visible and legible from both near and middle-distance views. It is not a subtle or incidental feature; it is the defining spatial characteristic of the street's built form. Each pair of houses reads as a composition of taller and lower elements, and the collective repetition of this arrangement gives the street its ordered and coherent appearance.

The proposal would introduce the first break in this pattern by raising one of those single-storey garage elements to two storeys. The resulting form would be a continuous two-storey mass across the frontage of number 6 that would appear anomalous in the streetscape. I acknowledge that the corner position of the property means it has no symmetrical relationship with its neighbours. However, the absence of a mirrored relationship with number 8 does not mean that the proposal would be neutral in character terms when considering the pattern of the street scape. The relevant comparison is not with an identical adjacent pair but with the pattern of the street, which the proposal would be notably out of keeping with.

I also acknowledge that the extension would be set back from the road and that the first-floor gap is not prominently visible in longer views along the street. However, the setback would still follow the existing garage footprint and rather than being a genuinely recessive design feature, the extension would be prominently visible from the street, particularly in front of and adjacent to the property.

The appellant argues that the gap between properties lacks functional purpose since number 8 has a blank gable wall facing the garage. [name] acknowledge this, it's not determinative; the townscape value of the gap comes from its role in maintaining the street's rhythm and character, regardless of whether windows overlook it or the appearance of the adjacent wall. The gap makes a positive contribution to the character of the street in its own right; it provides visual relief between the building masses of numbers 6 and 8, allows the two-storey elements of each dwelling to be read as distinct compositions, and reinforces the ordered, legible rhythm that is the defining characteristic of [address] as a street.

I have also had regard to the guidance in the Council’s High Quality Places Supplementary Planning Document 2015 (SPD), which at paragraphs 8.8 and 8.9 identifies that side extensions can significantly impact the street scene by occupying important space between properties, and requires this to be carefully considered. In this case I find that the space between the first floors of numbers 6 and 8 is important to the character of the street, and that its loss would represent the type of harmful impact that the SPD guidance seeks to prevent.

Finally, I have considered the letter provided by [name] who do not object to the proposal. However, obtaining consent from the site’s developer is not determinative as to whether the proposal is acceptable in planning terms. As such, I attribute limited weight to the supporting letter from [name] and it does not of itself provide any justification for the harm identified.

To conclude, the proposed extension would undermine the visual coherence of the streetscape along [address] contrary to Policies DM15, DM16 and DM17 of the Winchester Local Plan Part 2, emerging Policy D2 and Paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and guidance with the Council’s High Quality Places SPD.

The appellant refers to personal circumstances, including the need for a spare bedroom to support their young family. I also note the appellant refers to the proposal would achieve an efficient use of land as supported by the Framework. I have sympathy with these points, but they do not override the requirement for development to comply with the development plan and deliver well-designed places.

Taking all matters into account, the proposal would cause harm to the character of the area contrary to several policies of the development plan. There are no material considerations that would outweigh this harm and the appeal is dismissed.