Appeal 6006898

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 of development refers to it being retrospective. However, as ‘retrospective’ does not describe an act of development I have removed this from the description of the proposal. At the time of my site visit, I noted that the extension was already in place and reflected the submitted plans, however the fence had not yet been constructed. Therefore, I am considering the development on the basis of the submitted plans.

The effect of the appeal scheme on the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling occupying a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The surrounding area displays a mixed character, with semi-detached dwellings to the north of [address], and a range of commercial and community uses located to the south. Frontages along [address] are generally open in nature or defined by low boundary walls, contributing to a relatively spacious street scene. [address], forward projecting elements to dwellings typically incorporate pitched or lean-to roof forms. By contrast, flat-roofed garages are a characteristic feature along [address]. However, these structures are generally simple in form, regular in shape and aligned squarely within their plots.

Notwithstanding the projection of the extension up to the side boundary, that part of the development retains an adequate setback from the highway and a generous front driveway. Consequently, it does not represent overdevelopment of the plot, even when taking into consideration previous additions.

Nevertheless, the architectural style of the extension does not reflect that of the existing dwelling. In particular, the flat-roofed form, irregular footprint, orientation, and proximity to the side boundary results in a visually prominent, bulky and overbearing addition when read in the context of the host dwelling, despite its single storey nature. This is at odds with the guidance set out in RED5 of the Tameside Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (2010) (SPD), which encourages extension roofs to be in the same style as the host dwelling.

The examples of flat-roofed buildings put forward by the appellant are not directly comparable. One relates to a large community building of very different architecture to the properties around it, while the garage examples along [address] do not read as part of the [address] street scene. Moreover, those garages generally sit comfortably within their plots due to their straightforward design and orientation, which contrasts with the appeal extension.

The proposed 1.6 metre high boundary fence along the highway frontage would introduce a visually harsh and enclosing feature that would detract from the open character of frontages in the area. Although reference has been made to a 2 metre high fence at [address], this appears to be an isolated example and is along the side of the property, albeit on a road frontage. It stands out as an unusual and prominent feature in the street scene, and does not represent the prevailing character of the surrounding area.

I conclude, the extension does, and the proposed fence would, harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the appeal scheme fails to accord with policies C1 and H10 of The Tameside Unitary Development Plan (2004), which requires development to give particular attention to their setting in the design of any proposal and to apply an architectural style that reflects the existing dwelling.

I have also had regard to policies RED1 and RED5 of the SPD, which require proposals to have complementary roof forms and to apply an architectural style that reflects the existing dwelling.

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.