Appeal 6008522

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene.

The appeal property is a semi-detached, two-storey house and forms part of a row of similar properties. The other half of the semi-detached pair (No.15), as well as the neighbouring semis (Nos.17 & 18), have two-storey side extensions. The proposal would also extend to the rear, including a further single-storey element beyond, and incorporate dormer windows. Together, this would add significant massing to the property, and the alterations to the roof would be at odds with the prevailing hipped roof form.

The rear dormers would not be visible from the street but would create an incongruous form with the dormers on both sides of a rear gabled projection, and to the front the addition would be an anomaly in the street scene.

The appellant has drawn my attention to No. 32, which has front dormers. However, these dormers are part of the property’s original design, forming the first floor, and the property is a more recent addition to the street than the predominantly Victorian/Edwardian properties that define the area’s character. In addition, Horsell Moor is developed on one side only, and No. 32 does not form part of the appeal property’s immediate street scene.

The extension would be set back and offset from the side boundary, although this would be limited. Due to the tapered alignment of the boundary, the existing extension to the adjacent property, and the additional bulk to the roofscape and dormer, it would be a visually intrusive addition and out of keeping with the appearance of this group of properties.

The footprint of the property would not increase substantially, and I accept that extensions can introduce different, but complementary, design elements. In this instance, however, the combined scale, massing and design of the proposal would consume the host property and fail to harmonise with its setting.

As such, the proposal would not integrate with the character and appearance of the host property and street scene. Thus, the proposed development would be contrary to Policies CS21 and CS24 of the [name] (2012) which together require that new development respects and makes a positive contribution to the street scene and enhances the townscape character.

There would also be conflict with the similar design objectives of the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework, which supports good design and development that is sympathetic to local character.

I recognise the appellant’s desire to increase the size of the property for their growing family and also that the narrow form of the property and plot presents challenges in that regard. These matters do not alter my assessment of the proposal in relation to the development plan, and the development would essentially be a private benefit for the occupiers.

For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.