Appeal 6006063

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is one half of a semi-detached pair and occupies a prominent, end-of-row position. This section of the street is characterised by semi-detached dwellings featuring arched doorways, two-storey bay windows and attached garages. The consistent appearance of these properties creates a strong sense of uniformity and symmetry that positively defines the rhythm and character of the street scene. Although the adjacent bungalows give way to a mix of building types, the appeal property remains visually aligned with the semi-detached pairings, and it is within this context that the proposal would be experienced.

The proposed wrap-around extension would be set back from the front elevation, constructed in matching brickwork and would incorporate a bay window that reflects the character of the host property. However, despite being subordinate to the main ridge, its wrap-around form would create a projection that extends significantly beyond the rear elevation. The combined width, depth, and elongated roof pitch would result in an extension of excessive massing and bulk which would dominate the host dwelling. Although the proposed boundary fence would provide some screening, a substantial proportion of the flank wall and roof would remain visible. Thus, it would not mitigate the visual harm arising from the extension’s unduly dominant and intrusive appearance.

Moreover, the proposed porch would introduce an asymmetrical feature that disrupts the balance of the semi-detached pair and undermines the uniform rhythm that informs their character. The overall scale of the proposal would not be subordinate to the host dwelling, and it would disrupt the balanced rhythm and character of the street scene. Owing to the end of row position and set back of the adjacent dwellings, the discordant features and bulk of the proposal would be readily visible to passersby and neighbouring occupants.

The fallback scheme advanced by the appellant comprises a separate side and rear extension and a smaller front porch. With a roof pitch in keeping with the host dwelling and a smaller overall scale, it would have a reduced visual mass and appear less bulky. As a result, it would be less obtrusive than the proposal before me. Accordingly, I find it would be less harmful and therefore this does not afford any weight.

Although sizeable, the extension at No. [address] incorporates a roof form that remains in keeping with the host property, while the combination of its two-storey and single-storey elements effectively breaks up its overall visual mass. The sense of uniformity and symmetry at this location is also not as strong and therefore, while I do not dispute the prominence of the site, its context is not directly comparable. Further, although there are porches of similar scale and design further along the road, as well as single-storey and two-storey extensions in the wider area, these examples are not characteristic of the site’s immediate context. They therefore do not persuade me that the development is acceptable.

Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy EQ11 of the South Staffordshire Council Core Strategy (2012) where it seeks to ensure that the scale and massing of proposals contribute positively to the street scene, respecting local character and distinctiveness.

The appeal site is not within or near designated heritage assets. Further, while the proposal would not be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and highway safety, or the adequacy of garden space and landscaping, these are neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of the appeal proposal.

In reaching my decision, I have had regard to the public representations made. Whilst mindful of the support given, the lack of objection to the proposal does not indicate that the development is acceptable in planning terms. They therefore have no bearing on my consideration of the merits of the proposal.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.