Appeal 6005530

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property, adjoining dwelling and the wider street scene.

The existing dwelling to the east has a forward siting to that of the appeal dwelling. However, the appeal property hosts a front building line akin to those properties to its west. Forming part of a semi-detached dwelling the appeal property relates in appearance to the properties within this row. Within the street scene the dwellings host small frontage porches of a significantly smaller scale than that of the front extension proposed here.

The proposed extension would project significantly forward of the frontage of the host dwelling. It would have a L-shape design and be sited to one side of the dwelling frontage. Although the existing garage projects beyond the frontage of the dwelling, the overall size and design of the extension would be an uncharacteristic frontage feature within this street scene. Whilst the appellant contends that its L-shape design would lessen the extension’s visual prominence at the front of the dwelling, I do not agree on this point. The adjoining property has had its roof altered from hip to gable. Nonetheless, the large front extension would visually unbalance the appearance of the semi-detached dwellings at street level, despite the adjoining property now hosting a modern garage door. The proposal would be harmfully visually out of keeping for these reasons.

Although the extension would be seen against the backdrop of the existing neighbouring dwelling when passing eastwards along the highway, the visual harm arising from the proposal would be clearly noticeable in public views when viewed from the west and when approaching the adjacent public right of way. I acknowledge that the proposal would incorporate an integral garage that replicates the architectural feature of the existing post-war design of the dwelling and that space would be retained between the highway and the extension. However, these factors do not overcome my above concerns even if landscaping at the site frontage may make the proposal less obvious as it matures.

The garage space included in the plans would allow for storage space, in particular for bicycles, encouraging greener transport options for occupants, in keeping with local strategy policy. The proposal would make more efficient use of the site and provide improved accessibility internally within this family home. It would be of a high standard of construction and incorporate materials that would match the host dwelling. The proposal would not impact on the living condition of existing neighbouring occupiers. Whilst these are all merits of the proposed development, they do not overcome my above concern or justify the proposal.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property, adjoining dwelling and the wider street scene. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan and the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). That policy seeks, amongst other matters, development to be of high quality design that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of its surroundings. The Council’s SPG notes that 'single storey front extensions are rarely acceptable' largely because they can appear out of place in the street scene. I consider that to be the case here.

I note that the [name] has been referenced within the Council’s reasons for refusal but it has not been relied upon within the [name]. For clarity, I have relied upon the policy and SPG stipulated within the Council’s decision notice in reaching my decision.

It has been highlighted that other external works are planned for the property, however they do not form part of the planning application that is now the subject of this appeal. As such, those are separate matters that are not before me as part of this appeal.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.