Appeal 6006293

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

The appeal site is an end terraced property within an area that is made up of similar terraced groups. The layout of the dwellings is slightly unusual with the front elevations facing towards footpaths whilst their rear gardens and garages are alongside the road. Land levels rise towards the appeal site, and the property is situated close to a country park to which the footpaths lead. Dwellings within the terrace and those nearby are largely unaltered and have matching appearances that repeat along each group with a staggered building line. They are simple in their design with a small canopy over each front door. These factors combine to create a pleasant sense of original uniformity that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would remove the canopy and the front door. It would include the installation of a floor to ceiling window in the front elevation of the extension which would be an alien feature. The extension would have a flat roof and introduce an awkward block to the otherwise simple frontage of the terrace. All of these factors would erode the uniformity that is currently experienced. This would be exacerbated by the raised land levels of the property and stepped building line which would make the proposal unduly prominent from the aforementioned footpaths.

The proposal would therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. This would lead to conflict with Policy SD4 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] 2017 and Policies A1 and A9 of the Gloucester City Plan 2023. These are concerned with development being appropriate for its site and setting amongst other things.

I have not been provided with any specific history of similar frontage developments close by. Nevertheless, they are an exception to the norm that do not sufficiently influence the character as I have identified it to the point the appeal scheme would be acceptable. Equally, the extension at Number 48 [site address] is set within a different context at the rear of the properties where the frontage uniformity is not such a defining feature. The proposal is therefore not sufficiently comparable.

There would not be a legitimate fallback position for a porch under the permitted development regime given that the proposal is not for a porch and includes the re-location of the front door. Even if I were to accept that there was a fallback position, the floor space of the proposal would substantially exceed that which would be permitted without the need for express planning permission.

The absence of any objections from the occupants of neighbouring properties or any other matters not in dispute including the height and garden space which may be acceptable in the scheme would be a lack of harm and thus neutral in any balance of considerations. The use of matching materials could be conditioned if the scheme was otherwise acceptable. But that is not the case.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. 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.