Appeal 6004231

The appeal is dismissed.

At my site visit, I saw that a lean-to structure has been constructed at the appeal site. Although the general size and location appeared to align with the submitted plans, the structure was unfinished. Consequently, I cannot be certain that it fully accords. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the plans before me.

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

The set back of the proposed extension from the front and rear elevation of the appeal property means that its footprint would not be excessive. Facing brick would complement the existing property and the flat roof structure would not be uncharacteristic of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. However, even if a condition were imposed to omit the windows in the side elevation, the overall height of the proposal would noticeably exceed the eaves level of the original dwelling. Accordingly, the extension would not be subordinate in scale and would read as an obtrusive and disjointed addition to the appeal property.

Whilst the screening provided by the roadside hedge would help to reduce the visual impact, the proposal would remain visible to road users and the occupants of nearby properties. Moreover, despite the submitted plans indicating the retention of the hedge, it is not an indestructible feature. Should the hedge die or be removed, the unduly dominant and jarring appearance of the proposal would be much more prominent. Therefore, this is not a feature which could be permanently relied upon to screen the development.

No [address] is a two-storey dwelling and thus the relationship between the original dwelling and the single storey extension1 is not strictly comparable to the appeal situation. In any case, and despite the site’s prominence, the extension does not exceed the eaves height of the host dwelling meaning that it reads as a visually subordinate addition. It is therefore materially different to the scheme before me and does not lead me to a different conclusion.

For these reasons, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would conflict with Policy N1 of the Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 (2014) where it seeks to secure a high standard of design which preserves and enhances the character of the area.

The case officer’s report acknowledges that the principle of the development would be acceptable, and I have no reason to conclude otherwise. Furthermore, owing to the separation from other properties and limited openings there would be no harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers. Given that sufficient onsite parking is provided, the scheme would not lead to additional on street parking and associated highway safety concerns. These however are neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The appeal site lies within the 0-8km zone of influence for the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation which comprises a large, diverse area of seminatural vegetation. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, it is not necessary for me to further assess the effect of the proposal on the designated site.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.