Appeal 6008860

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the local area.

The appeal property forms one half of a semi-detached pair on [address] along which dwellings are generally arranged in broadly consistent pairs. This rhythm of matching pairs and balanced front elevations, with neighbouring pairs sometimes mirroring each other, contributes positively to the character and appearance of the street scene and local area to which the site belongs.

There are porches, canopies and other front additions to properties along [address] and nearby streets. From what I saw, these structures tend to be modest in size, shallow in forward projection and visually recessive when seen against the principal elevation. As a result, these existing porches and front extensions mostly blend in with the general appearance of the host building and do not disrupt the underlying symmetry and balance of the dwellings to which they attach.

The proposed porch would be materially different. It would project prominently forward of the main 2-storey elevation and span across a significant proportion of the frontage. Consequently, it would not visually ‘read’ as a subordinate feature. Instead, the new addition would appear as a substantial and dominant feature that would unduly compete with, rather than proportionate to, the main dwelling.

There would also be a poorly resolved design detail because the new porch would be up against the front ground floor window with the roof extending across part of the opening. This awkward arrangement would draw the eye from the road.

The appeal property does currently have a small central porch with a short canopy above the entrance doorway, but these are in keeping with the overall design and scale of the dwelling. These existing features do not undermine the cohesive appearance of the host dwelling or the pair nor disrupt the established pattern in the wider street scene. As the proposed porch would be larger and a more far conspicuous feature in public views than its existing counterpart, the visual impact of the proposal would be far greater.

For all these reasons, the introduction of a substantial new porch, as proposed, would unbalance the composition of the pair to which No 120 belongs. There would also be a resultant loss of general symmetry with the neighbouring semi-detached pair, which broadly mirrors the layout of the appeal property and its attached counterpart. This arrangement would be harmful in the context of a street where such relationships are an important component of its character.

I have taken account of other examples of front dwelling extensions in the local area. Some variation in porch size and design is evident locally. However, none of the examples I saw combine the width, forward projection and uneasy relationship to the principal elevation that characterise this proposal. While individual properties have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of their occupiers, the local area retains a distinctive character rooted in the consistent scale, form and arrangement of its dwellings. The proposal would erode that character to a unacceptable extent.

Matching materials would provide a degree of visual consistency with the existing dwelling. That is a point in the proposal's favour. However, the harm that I have identified stems from the scale and siting of the new porch, not its surface finish. Materials alone cannot resolve those concerns.

Overall, the proposal would appear as an unduly large and visually prominent addition that would disrupt the balance and symmetry of the pair. I say this not because modest porches are unwelcome in areas of this character — they plainly can be acceptable — but because the scale and position of the appeal scheme go beyond what can be readily assimilated into the local street scene.

For these reasons, I conclude on the main issue that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the local area. As such, it is contrary to Policy CLP20 of the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan. This policy promotes good design and seeks to ensure that development responds positively to the character of the site and its surroundings. It also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that development should be sympathetic to local character and contribute positively to the overall quality of an area.

I have taken account of the benefits put forward by the appellant, including improved security, enhanced weather protection and thermal efficiency. While these benefits weigh in favour of the proposal, there is no compelling evidence before me that they could only be achieved through a porch of the scale proposed. These considerations do not outweigh the identified harm.

Overall, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR