Appeal 6004942

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling (No 124) and the surrounding area.

No 124 is a two-storey end-terraced dwelling facing [address]. Surrounding properties are of similar design, with some being semi-detached as well as terraced. There is some variation in the gaps to the side of dwellings.

It is put to me that this residential area is unremarkable and that No 124 is of no architectural merit. However, I found this area to have a regimented estate layout, with many significant gaps between dwellings allowing for views of shrubbery beyond. These gaps positively contribute to the area’s character and appearance, along with the planned soft landscaping areas and trees along carriageways.

The proposal would extend fully out to No 124’s side boundary. Whilst a narrower gap further towards the side of the adjacent terraced unit of No 126 would remain, the extension would significantly restrict a view of trees beyond No 124, visible between its side elevation and that of No 126. This visual break between the two terraces makes a meaningful and positive contribution to the character of No 124 and its surrounds, despite not being part of a special landscape designation.

The additional bulk and scale would appear cramped and squeezed into the plot. There are no similar examples in the immediate vicinity of two-storey built form abutting a side boundary. The extension would thus appear as a conspicuous and discordant addition to the host dwelling and its surroundings, and would detract from the distinctive character of the site and its context. Existing roadside soft landscaping would not mitigate this adverse visual impact, and neither would the integrated design approach in terms of eaves and ridge heights.

Policy 8 of the Council’s Local Plan (adopted 2019) sets out that when considering applications for new residential extensions of two or more storeys in height, the Council will normally require a minimum 1 metre space from the side boundary of the site to be retained for the full height and length of the building. I agree that this policy should not be applied in a rigid, inflexible or blanket manner.

However, in the specific circumstances of this case, for the above reasons I conclude that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of No 124 and the surrounding area. The scheme is thus contrary to Policies 6, 8 and 37 of the LP. Collectively, these policies require, amongst other things, enlargement of residential properties to complement and be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of proportion and layout, and respect space or gaps between buildings that contribute to the character of the area.

Specific design guidance (DG5) within the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted 2023) advises, amongst other things, that extensions to existing buildings should appear subservient in scale to avoid uncharacteristically large additions. Whilst subservience is not a requirement of [name] 6, 8 and 37, the SPD guidance also seeks development to respond to character by adopting an appropriate design approach. For the reasons already set out, the proposal is contrary to that aspect of the SPD guidance.

I saw several examples of two storey side extensions in the wider vicinity. The appeal proposal is of limited width in comparison to some of these examples. These extensions however are either within significantly wider plots, or are in more spacious corner plot locations adjacent planned open space areas and/or road junctions. These examples therefore do not justify allowing this appeal.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) places significant emphasis on the need to build a strong and competitive economy. The construction industry creates and supports a wide variety of jobs and apprenticeships, with associated increased local expenditure. However, given the householder scale of development proposed, the resultant economic benefits are only afforded limited weight. The Framework also advocates good design as a key aspect of sustainable development, and as I have found that the proposal does not respect its context, it fails to meet that key aspect of the Framework.

The extent of harm to the character and appearance of No 124 and the surrounding area amounts to conflict with the development plan as a whole. The material considerations before me, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.