Appeal 6006598

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.

I have taken the description of development from the Council’s Decision Notice as this is more concise.

The Council have referred to Policy H16 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (1997) (as altered and consolidated) (the Local Plan). However, this policy is concerned with side and rear extensions of two storeys or more, or those above first floor level and so is not applicable to the proposed development.

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

The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling located on a residential close. All the properties near the appeal site have a neat and fairly compact appearance which unifies its character. The frontages of the properties are generally open. This combined with the relatively wide grass verges and small areas of green space create a sense of openness, helping to offset the otherwise relatively compact character of the housing layout.

The appeal property is simple in form and possesses a cohesive design and symmetry at the front with the neighbouring adjoining property. The small area of garden to the side of the property is enclosed by a fence and the rear of the garden is bordered by a mature evergreen hedgerow. The appeal property is largely unaltered in views from [address] and overall makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal involves the demolition of an existing conservatory and construction of a single-storey extension to the side of the appeal property which would wrap around its rear elevation. Despite the matching materials and set back from the front elevation, the scale and massing of the extension relative to the host property would result in it being visually dominant, rather than subordinate to the property.

In addition, the open view of the appeal property from [address] would increase the visibility of the side portion of the extension. Whilst a gap would be maintained between the appeal property and the adjacent dwellings that front the side of the appeal site, the sense of openness and separation that currently exists would be significantly diminished.

I am aware that this proposal follows a previously refused scheme and associated appeal for a larger side and rear extension and the roof design on the new proposal has been altered and simplified. It is however sufficiently clear from my findings above that this scheme does not fully address the concerns raised by that Inspector.

Views of the rear of the property from [address] are screened by a mature hedgerow. I agree with the appellant that the variation between dwellings is more evident at the rear and the effect on character and appearance from the rear would not be substantial.

I note reference has been made by the appellant to other properties on the close that have undertaken or have approval for side, front and rear extensions. Specific details have not been provided and whilst it is evident that some alterations to properties have occurred on the close, I do not have any evidence to draw sufficient parallels with the appeal scheme that would weigh in its favour.

For these reasons, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. The proposal would be contrary to Policy CS20 of the [name] for Chiltern District (2011) and to Policies GC1, H13 and H15 of the Local Plan. It would also conflict with guidance in the [name] and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (2013) which seeks to ensure that development, including specifically an extension to a dwelling, displays a high standard of design that reflects and respects local character.

I recognise that the proposed development would be acceptable with regard to the amenity of neighbouring properties and would provide the appellant with additional accommodation. However, these are neutral factors in the planning balance.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no other material considerations of sufficient weight to make a decision other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I 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.