Appeal 6004938

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and the effect on highway safety.

The appellant advises that the appeal scheme has been amended to address the council’s concerns by the removal of the single-storey front extension and its replacement with a modest porch; and by stepping back the two-storey side extension from the principal elevation to ensure subordination. These changes are not shown on the included plans and there is nothing before me to suggest that the council considered the changes described. I have therefore considered the proposal as shown on the plans. Any plans that differ from those considered by the council would need to be provided, in the first instance, as a new application.

The site plan and the ground floor plan differ with regard to the proximity of the extension to the side boundary. My assessment has been made on the basis of the floor plan as it corresponds with the proposed elevations. This plan shows the works set away from the side boundary. The plans also show a wide front addition and a two storey side extension positioned flush with the front of the dwelling.

The proposal would retain the front two storey bay of the dwelling which is an important feature of the design of the house and its attached neighbour. The two storey side extension would continue the alignment of the front of the house and would represent a significant side addition in terms of its width. Without a set back Appeal Decision: 6004938 from the frontage, this element would represent poor design as it would change the proportions of the dwelling and would result in the new element becoming an overly prominent feature of the overall design. The single storey extension would also detract from the design of the original dwelling. As a result, the proposed works would dominate the appearance of the property and detract from the interest provided by the bay windows and the original proportions of the house.

The proposal would be at odds with the specific requirements of the council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (SPD) as it would be overly large and dominant. Although the guidance accepts integrated extensions that follow the form of the original house, it is clear that this does not apply to semi-detached properties. Given the nature of the design of this dwelling, it is not a property that would suit such an approach. The guidance generally seeks a one metre set back in such circumstances.

There are similar houses in the immediate area that have been extended to the side. These include a dwelling to the west with a flat roof two storey extension; and two in [address]. All three extensions are built flush with the frontage. No evidence has been presented to indicate that these are recent additions and that the council has therefore acted inconsistently and failed to follow its own current guidance. These extensions appear to be of a more modest width and do not include the additional front extension. There are also a number of extensions to similar properties to the east on [address]. These include a set back from the frontage as required by the guidance. As a result, these retain the original details and proportions of the dwelling, whilst the extensions sit relatively unobtrusively back from the frontage.

Overall, the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the property and the street scene. In addition to conflict with the SPD, it would be at odds with the design objectives of policies DS1(A&B) and DS3(A) of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2017. The proposal also conflicts with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework which is clear that development that is not well designed should be refused.

Concern has been raised with regard to parking provision. Measurements of the parking area have not been provided. The layout shown suggests that it may be the intention to allow access across the full extent of the frontage. This would add to my design concerns. Overall, the information provided is not sufficient for this matter to be fully assessed and in any event, given my main findings, it would not alter my conclusion.

I have had regard to the submissions made by the appellant and the lack of concerns raised locally. With regard to materials, these could be controlled by condition. Whilst the upgrading of the property and the investment required to do so weighs in favour of the proposal, there are no matters that are sufficient to outweigh my concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal.