Appeal 6006076

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description on the application form differs to the decision notice. However, I am satisfied that the original description accurately describes the appeal development and is therefore reflected above.

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

The appeal building is a two-storey detached dwelling sitting on the corner of [address] and [address]. Surrounding dwellings on [address] are similar in both their siting and design with consistent rooflines and simplistic front and rear elevations. Where altered, they are well-proportioned and consistent with their host. The wider dwellings on [address] are larger with varying rooflines. There is no defined building line on the corner of [address] however, the open corners on both sides of the road contribute to a pleasant open feel to the surrounding streets which is a positive aspect of the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal proposal would sit in line with the existing semi-detached dwellings on [address] in terms of height and siting. It would however project much further sidewards enclosing the open corner which faces [address]. Moreover, its length and primarily blank elevation close to the boundary would appear as an oppressive and non-subservient feature on a prominent corner of the street. Resultantly, the remaining side gap would be very small and would not retain the area’s consistency in terms of open corners from each of the road offshoots of [address]. This is notwithstanding the lack of a formalised building line.

The accentuated hipped roof would be obvious and exaggerated which would highlight its incompatibility. Notwithstanding the variance of roof forms on [address], as the building reads closely with [address], it would detract from the consistency of the gable roofs on this side of the road. Moreover, the combination of roof forms to both the side and rear elevations would be awkward and at odds with the original building, dominating the primary elevations. The appellant has advised they could make changes to the roof; however, the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. What is considered should be the proposal on which the Council issued a decision.

With the above in mind, the overall proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with Policy JP-P1 of Places for Everyone (2024) and SPD4 of the Guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

The scheme would ensure the dwelling would still be read as a single unit and the materials would be cohesive throughout. There would also be no harm to the living conditions of neighbours or highway safety. These would however be neutral matters would not weigh in the proposals’ favour.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan. I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.