Appeal 6004460

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached property located within a residential area. The locality is characterised by residential properties, many of which are detached and of a similar age and character. The regularity of the detached houses generates a distinctive rhythm, and while there are a variety of housetypes and some have been subject to subsequent alteration, there is a general consistency in form and scale. The regular gaps between houses are as much a part of this characteristic as the built elements.

The western side of [address] contains a relatively straight row of detached houses between number 5 and 21. Many of these properties are red brick and render construction, although numbers 17, 19 and 21 are of buff brick construction. There is a minor consecutive setback of properties along the street, which provides a subtle yet discernible sense of widening spaciousness as the street is viewed from the south.

There is strong uniformity, particularly between 9, 11 and [address], where the housetypes are similar and the flat roofed link garages remain largely unaltered. As a result, wide gaps exist between houses at first floor level, providing the street with a sense of openness. The appeal property has a hipped roof over the garage and while it is unclear whether this was original or a later addition, it nevertheless allows for the retention of a reasonable proportion of the first-floor gap to number 15.

[address] has a more substantial roof structure over the garage, extending almost to the ridge height of the main house. As a result, there is little space between this house and the appeal property. Number 21 was either a large house on construction or has been extended to full height on it southern gable. Regardless, there is currently little space between numbers 19 and 21.

Having regard to this, it has been put to me that the small grouping of numbers 17, 19 and [address] differ from the remainder of the street, both in terms of materials and form. Whether originally intended, or otherwise, this is the case to some extent. The gap between number 19 and its neighbours is unusually smaller on both sides in comparison to the rest of the street, and there is sense of denser development as a result. While number 19 is located at the centre of this identified cluster and is read together with its neighbours, the appeal property, although a part of this group is also seen in the context of its neighbour to the south.

The appeal proposal would include a two-storey side extension, set-back from the front elevation of the host property by around 0.5m. This would reflect the minimum standard set out in the [address] Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (‘the SPD’). However, the document is clear in identifying this as a minimum set-back, and the SPD does not indicate that 0.5m would be acceptable in all instances.

The proposal would reduce the visual gap between the appeal property and its neighbour to the south. The size of the proposal would be highlighted by the minimal set-back from the front elevation of the appeal property, which would appear as a large and wide property as a result.

By reducing the visual gap between the appeal property and its southern neighbour, the more dense spacing of the group formed by numbers 17, 19 and 21 would begin to merge into the different character of the remainder of the street, particularly as the appeal property would be of greater mass and bulk in comparison to number 15. The proposal would therefore represent an erosion of the visual relief provided by the relatively open aspect. The fact that the ridgeline of the proposal would match that of number 15 would not reduce this harm to any significant extent.

My attention has been drawn to other examples within the street and in the local area, however, I have not been provided with the full circumstances and details of all of the examples cited. Nevertheless, I have had regard to them and find that given the particular circumstances of the appeal property and its neighbours as set out above, none is so directly comparable to the appeal property, its immediate surroundings or the specific proposal so as to lead me to conclude that to find harm in this case would amount to unreasonable inconsistency.

I therefore find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy D11 of the York Local Plan which states, among other factors, that proposals to extend existing buildings should respond positively to their immediate architectural context and local character, in terms of the materials, scale, proportion and space between buildings. It would also conflict with advice within the SPD, as I have set out above.

There would be a boost to the economy during the construction of the appeal proposal, however given the small-scale of the project, such a boost is likely to be short-term and relatively small. This factor forms only a minor benefit of the proposal.

It is stated that the proposal would extend the life of the dwelling and increase its suitability for occupation for the appellant and future generations. While the proposal could provide improved living conditions for existing and future occupiers of the appeal property, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that it is currently unsuitable for habitation, nor that its lifespan is likely to be restricted should the appeal fail. These factors therefore attract very little weight in my considerations.

It is suggested that alternative schemes to address the Council’s concerns would have harmful effects upon the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, in contrast to the appeal proposal. However, no detailed alternative scheme has been put before me, there is no suggestion that a fallback position exists and alternative schemes are no more than theoretical at this stage. Consequently, this also carries very little weight in reaching my decision.

Several representations indicating support for the scheme have been received from local residents. [name] have had regard to these representations, they do not raise any issues which are worthy of such weight that they would lead me to conclude that the proposal would not be unacceptably harmful.

I note that the appellant has expressed some frustration with the Council’s conduct, and that the appellant has sought to amend the proposal in order to overcome concerns raised in relation to a previous proposal. However, these are not matters which relate to the merits of the proposal and have not, therefore, factored in my decision.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.