Appeal 6004791

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and locality.

The appeal concerns a detached bungalow with the main part having a pitched roof that is located at the end of [site address] . Projecting into the back garden is a flat roof single storey side addition with a conservatory located at the end. The latter has a fairly gently sloping roof, which with the extent of glazing provides a pleasant lightweight contrast to the attached addition. As a result of these factors and its fairly modest depth, its removal would not constitute a significant benefit.

Moreover, the development would significantly increase the depth of the existing ground floor flat roof addition. In consequence, the total cumulative depth would noticeably exceed that of the main part of the dwelling, giving rise to an unacceptably elongated appearance. Despite the presence of a fairly small lantern feature, there would also be an unduly large expanse of flat roof, unacceptably at odds with the main pitched roof character of the property. Together with the existing side addition, the development would result in a disproportionate enlargement, unbalancing the host dwelling.

The Appellant points out that there are a variety of rear extensions and alterations in the area. However, my attention has not been drawn to any development comparable to that which would result in this instance. Furthermore, I saw at my site visit that such an unduly linear flat roofed projection is not a typical feature at the back of nearby dwellings adjacent to the rear garden of the host property which are characterised by pitched roofs. Consequently, in the immediate context, the enlarged addition would be a fairly unusual and incongruous feature.

The development would not be readily apparent from the street. However, the suggestion that acceptability should be conferred on this basis reflects an implicit acknowledgement of the inappropriate nature of the design. Moreover, I am reinforced in my view regarding the unacceptable nature of the development by the importance placed on design in the National Planning Policy Framework where it is indicated that the creation of high quality buildings is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve and good design, which would not be achieved in this case, is a key aspect of sustainable development.

For these reasons, rather than giving the host property a more coherent and unified appearance, it is concluded that the character and appearance of the host dwelling and locality would be harmed.

In these circumstances there would be conflict with Wycombe District Local Plan, 2019, Policies DM35 and DM36 which, among other things, and taken together intend that development should achieve a high quality of design and respect the character and appearance of the existing property and surrounding area.

The acceptability of the development in respect of factors such as living conditions, parking and heritage are neutral matters that weigh neither for nor against the development. It is suggested that the energy efficiency of the property and the quality of the living accommodation would be improved. However, in this instance these would be achieved at the unacceptable expense of the quality of the built environment. Taking account of all other matters raised, because of the harm that would arise the appeal is dismissed.