Appeal 6004900

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposed development is taken from the application form. The Council, in its decision notice, describes the proposed development as a single storey rear extension, first floor side extension and rear dormer extensions including hip to gable and roof lights following demolition of existing conservatory.

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

The appeal property is two storey detached dwelling. It is located in a residential area largely characterised by the presence of two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings set back from the road behind front gardens and parking areas and with gardens to the rear.

The appeal property faces towards Mainway, which comprises two carriageways split by a wide area of green open space. This contributes to the area’s sense of greenery and spaciousness, which is further enhanced by the presence of gardens and large areas of public open space.

The appeal property comprises a large detached dwelling set well-above road level behind raised brick walls and the house extends across much of the width of the property. However, despite its considerable width and height, the dwelling steps down to the side, from two stories to single-storey in height. This, together with the dwelling’s hipped roof and the presence of garden land to the side, means that the dwelling does not unduly dominate its plot or its surroundings, despite its considerable height and width.

During my site visit, I observed that, whilst many dwellings in the area appear to have been altered and/or extended, such changes tend to appear in keeping with the surrounding area and in keeping with and subservient to, host dwellings. Whilst a number of detached dwellings in the area appear relatively large, they sit comfortably within spacious garden plots.

The proposal would involve a large two storey side extension designed in such a way that the existing hipped roof would be replaced by a gable roof that would extend across the full width of the extended dwelling. The absence of any set-down from ridge height would combine with the large scale of the extension to result in a vastly extended ridge line. The harmful appearance of this would be exacerbated by the development resulting in the creation of such considerable additional bulk and massing as to draw attention to itself as an unduly dominant feature in its surroundings.

Consequently, the proposed development would fail to appear as a subservient addition. Rather, it would subsume and overwhelm the appearance of the host dwelling. Further, as a result of its overall bulk, scale and dominant appearance, I find that the proposed development would lead the appeal dwelling to appear overly-large and cramped on its plot. As such, it would appear incongruous in its surroundings.

In addition to the above I find that, due to the raised height of the dwelling above road level, the increase in bulk and massing proposed would result in it appearing to “loom” above this part of Mainway to an overbearing degree.

Given all of the above, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (2024); to Policy DM1 of the [name] (2016); and to the Council’s Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (2016), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

The appellant, in support of his case, draws attention to another dwelling in the area. However, there is no detailed information before me to demonstrate that this other dwelling is so similar to the proposal before me, or that all of the circumstances relating to this other dwelling are so similar to those relating to the appeal before me, as to provide for direct comparison.

Notwithstanding this and in any case, I have found that the proposed development would result in significant harm and hence the decision below.

For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed.