Appeal 6007763

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposed development in the Council’s decision notice differs from that used in the planning application form. I have not been told whether the change was made by agreement between the parties. However, I have utilised the Council’s description since it more accurately describes that proposed.

Given the ambiguity in the representations, the Council was asked and has since confirmed that [site address] is not treated as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). However, it stands close to a group and other buildings treated as such.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: (a) the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings, and (b) on the living conditions of the residents of flat 2, [site address] with specific reference to light and visual impact.

The planning history shows that No 97 was converted into flats during the course of the past quarter of a century or so. Flats 1 & 3 occupy the two storey buildings on the site’s road frontage, whilst flat 2 is tucked-in behind. Whilst both frontage properties are two storeys, that occupied by flat 2 is visually subservient to the other largely on account of site levels. They have a close and pleasant visual relationship in a prominent position at the junction of [address] and [address], and form a group along with properties to the east along [address], treated by the Council as NDHAs. Further along [address] to the south is a mixture of relatively recent residential development and rather humdrum commercial buildings.

Whilst the appellant, as set out in the appeal statement, clearly considers otherwise the proposed upward extension in my view would imbalance the current scene and create visual disharmony. The pleasant visual relationship between the two principal parts of No 97 would be lost, and I share the Council’s view that the structure containing [site address] would appear harmfully top-heavy, particularly given its position at the back of pavement. The proposed harmful changes would be widely seen given the prominence of the site in the public realm. The setting of the NDHA’s would be affected, but only marginally so, given that most are set around the corner. However, the proposal is objectionable in its own right for the reasons set out above.

I conclude that the development proposed would harm the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with those provisions of policies CP9 & DM35 of the Wycombe District Local Plan requiring development to demonstrate attractive and high quality design contributing positively to making places better for people and which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area

The appellant has helpfully produced floor plans of flat [address] expressed that in the light of the fenestration pattern, its southward facing nature and the current height and position of [site address] , that the effect of the proposal on flat 2’s day- and sunlight would not be so significant as to prove harmful.

However, because of the closeness of [site address] to the small open area to the rear of flat 2, the additional storey proposed, particularly taking account of the long, rectangular box-like dormer structure, would appear overly dominating when viewed from there. The residents of Flat 2 would thus feel increasingly hemmed-in and harmfully oppressed by the development.

I conclude that scheme would give rise to a harmful visual impact affecting neighbouring living conditions. Accordingly, I find a clear conflict with those provisions of policies DM35 & DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan directed to preserving the amenities or preventing development giving rise to significant adverse effects on the amenities of neighbouring property.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered. The representations made by the owners of No 99 are noted, but I did not have the opportunity to enter their site. However, given my conclusions on other matters, I did not consider that a revisit was necessary. No other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading to my conclusions.