Appeal 6004638

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, bay fronted, end terrace house of red brick with some [name] gable elevations to its upper levels at both the front and the side. To the rear is a two storey outshut extension also of red brick and to the side a modest lean too bay with French doors giving access to a side garden. The property is located along [address] which contains flanking terrace and semi detached houses along this part of the street. What defines much of this part of [address] is the intentional separation of houses from the street along a robust building line demarked by front gardens and low boundary walls.

The appeal property occupies a corner plot onto [address] which itself has a strong building line along much of its length, also demarked by low walls. [address] however ‘dog legs’ as it approaches [address] and as such the building line also alters course around the area of the appeal property whose side garden continues the informal line in this area until the junction of the two roads.

The appeal property currently sports a sizeable timber outbuilding to this side garden area and has also obtained past permission to erect a timber fence above the red brick wall that wraps around the property boundary. These two elements have introduced an element of enclosure and built form into this location that encroaches over any such perceived building line from [address].

The proposal before me seeks permission to remove the timber shed building and to construct a single storey side extension that would provide a garden room, wet Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004638 room and study. The building would sport a roof whereby the initial slope would be tiled similar to the house before continuing to a flat roof beyond and behind. The side extension would be of brick materials to the front and render to the side and rear. To the side there would be two high level windows serving the wetroom and garden room within. To the back French doors would give access to the rear garden area.

In assessing this appeal I am aware of policies GD7 of the Fylde Local Plan to 2032 and other guidance contained within the [name] 2007. Both of these policies reflect the Framework in their desire to encourage good design that is both contextual and appropriate to its location.

In this case, I consider that the building line along [address] is not as defined as that along the front of the house to [address], even though there is a continuation of development along a similar alignment. Nevertheless, in this respect the side gardens on those properties flanking the junction of [address], do have a role to play in framing the junction and continuing the sense of a building line of sorts. The openness created by the houses flanking the junction is overall a positive one.

This effect of openness has been diluted through the existing outbuilding and the timber fence to the appeal site, but it nevertheless is maintained through the general openness of the side and rear garden and the boundary brick wall.

Through the introduction of a more permanent building here this element of civic design would be eroded further. However, even were such an encroachment to be supported, the proposed design of any such scheme would need to be very high quality and contextual to its location. [name] note the materials proposed are reflective of the appeal property and houses nearby, its roof form is most certainly not. In this respect the cumulative impact of the side extension as it stands together with what is actually an overly contrived roof form would be poor.

As such, the proposal before me does not constitute a well enough designed extension that would lend itself to enhance this corner plot were the building line here to be allowed to be encroached over. Even were there to be scope for some modest, well designed side extension here, the proposed scheme before me is not of a high enough quality to allow it to meet the policies above. As such the scheme would be in conflict with policies GD7 of the Local Plan and the guidance within SPD1.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other properties nearby whereby a similar situation exists. However, I do not consider the context of these examples to be as well defined as this site with regards its overriding setting. Moreover, I have no information before me as to the precise reasons that led to these developments coming to fruition. As such I can only give these examples very limited weight.

The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, for the reasons given above, whilst taking into account all other matters raised, I must dismiss this appeal. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004638