Appeal 3265623

The appeal is dismissed.

The decision notice describes the development as a hip to gable roof extension and rear dormer addition (retrospective). I note that the appellant has agreed to this change from the description on the application form, and so I have based my assessment on this revised description. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to the hip to gable extension only.

I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a semi-detached bungalow which together with the adjoining bungalow, No 72, originally had a hipped roof. The proposal has altered the hip to a gable and added a rear dormer window, both of which totally disrupt the symmetry of the pair and appear out of place and incongruous. Whilst each of the pair of semi-detached bungalows may differ in some detailing, the alteration to the shape of the roof on one half seriously unbalances the pair. The roof alteration has included adding a large dormer to the rear and although the Council do not specifically refer to this in its reason for refusal, it is part of the roof alteration and part of it is visible from the street.

I note that there are other dormers to the rear of properties but this is not the case with the attached bungalow and generally this style of bungalow was not designed to accommodate a large dormer. I also not that there are examples where hipped roofs have been altered but these do not reflect the overall character of the area and do little to convince me of the acceptability of this proposal.

Local Plan Policy EC21 indicates that the Council expect a high standard of design in relation to new buildings and extensions with particular regard to scale and design, amongst other things. Development should be appropriate to its setting and not harm the character of its surroundings. The promotion of good design is also a thrust of the National Planning Policy Framework2. RDG7 of the Council’s Residential Design Guidance3 refers to development to the roof of a property. This indicates that the roof of a dwelling, either built or as extended or altered, should be proportionate to the remainder of the dwelling. Furthermore, the policy indicates that the disruption or loss of symmetry to a pair or group of dwellings, both in terms of roof planes and/or roofscape, will be refused. I consider that the proposal would conflict with these policies.

The appellant explains the ‘fall back’ position in that some development can take place without the need for planning permission4. It is not the role of a S78 appeal to determine what is and what is not permitted development but having said this, I have considered that alterations could take place under permitted development. However, the appellant did not choose those options and so my assessment of this appeal is not swayed by what could or could not take place.

I have considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with Local Plan Policy EC2, the SPD and the Framework. The appeal therefore fails.