Appeal 6005076

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Alterations to the property were underway when I visited but as they were not complete, I have not considered the proposal as being retrospective.

The council’s concern relates to the lack of a set back of the side extension from the side boundary. This is a relatively uniform area of semi-detached houses and the gaps between the houses are generally the width of two narrow driveways. Although there are some variations, the differences are limited. Not all houses have a side driveway but they do generally have a similar width of garden to the side. Allowing development, at two storey height, within half of these gaps, would clearly reduce the space around these properties; and if accepted for one, it would be difficulty to resist development within the other half of the gap. This would result in the gaps being reduced and the uniform character of this layout eroded. The extended houses would appear cramped within their plots and the spaciousness of the layout of the area would be lost.

The proposal would meet a number of the requirements of the Householder Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (SPD). The one metre set back, lower roof and limited width, would help to make the extension appear subordinate and maintain the original form of the house design. However, the SPD also states that where detached or semi-detached houses are built in a uniform row, the council will insist that a minimum gap of one metre between the extension and the side boundary should be retained to prevent a cramped ‘terracing effect’. This gap will also allow access to the rear of the property and assist in the future maintenance of walls, guttering and roofs. Appeal Decision: 6005076

The council have previously accepted a side extension at this property that was not set in from the boundary but was set much deeper into the site, beyond the central ridge of the house. That design mechanism would assist in retaining the appearance of space between houses as the closing of the gap would not be visible in longer views, only when close to the frontage of the property. Whilst such an approach would be contrary to the council’s guidance, it appears that this design mechanism was accepted as a pragmatic alternative to setting the extension away from the boundary. The more limited set back of the extension, as now proposed, would also help to differentiate it from the original form of the dwelling and reduce the appearance of it being linked with the neighbouring property. However, this set back would not be sufficient to avoid the perceived loss of the space between properties in most views.

The slight change in levels would marginally assist in ensuring the two properties would be viewed separately but a similar side extension to the neighbouring property would result in these two houses appearing as being either linked or extremely cramped within their plots. This would be entirely at odds with the wider character of the area. The set back of the frontage would not be sufficient to provide the distinction that had previously been accepted by the council. It would therefore not represent a good standard of design in this context.

The proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with the design objectives of policies DS1(A&B) and DS3(A) of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2017. The proposal would also conflict with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework which is clear that development that is not well designed should be refused.

Reference is made to number [address] which has a very similar extension to that now proposed. This was accepted by the council in 2006. The appellant suggests that the general approach to side extensions has not changed and reference is made to policies 1, 2, 8 and 9 of the council’s previous house extension guidance. These policies have not been provided so it is not possible to assess whether the approach does remain the same. Current proposals must, in any event, be assessed against current policies. The development plan policies were adopted in 2017 whilst the SPD was adopted in 2012, both well after the previous decision in 2006.

I have had regard to the matters raised by the appellant and am mindful that neighbouring residents were consulted but no objections were made. However, there are no matters that are sufficient to outweigh my concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal.