Appeal 3279346

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

The appeal site falls within the Craneswater and Eastern Parade Conservation Area and its immediate surroundings comprise a residential area of predominantly two storey terraced housing. The subject building is in a prominent location at the junction of [address] and [address], and much like many other buildings in similar such locations, has a hipped roof to each side.

I noticed on my site visit that ridge lines do stagger in the surrounding streets, largely to take into account a change in gradient, however the proposal would raise the original roof quite significantly on the end of a run of quite a number of houses of the same height. I noted the stepped-up ridge line of [address] in comparison to no21 next door to it, and the other examples cited by the appellant, including where hipped roofs have been converted to gables, however ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits.

I accept that the existing property was previously in a poor state of repair and I noticed that renovation works have begun, including the removal of the paint from the external elevations and the restoration of the brickwork which has been carried out to a high standard.

However, I find that by virtue of the corner plot, the increased height of the roof would be unduly prominent within the street scene, especially as it would involve the construction of a gable end where currently there is none. The two storey outrigger would increase the prominence of the proposed extension further, especially when combined with the proposed dormer, which would be clearly visible from [address] where currently no such roof extensions are apparent on the rear of houses fronting [address] or St. [address].

I accept that loft conversions generally require a dormer to facilitate usable space, but as in this case, it is a situation of form following function, and from an aesthetic point of view the proposal in totality would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

I have been given no reason to doubt that the internal and external living environments of the appeal property would be significantly enhanced for future occupiers and it is clear that there has been considered thought given to the design process. However, whilst I acknowledge the aspects of the proposed development that fall in its favour, along with the positive comments received from a number of local residents on the proposed design which would give rise to a ‘traditional’ family home being built, I consider that such public benefits do not outweigh the less than substantial harm that would be caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset (Conservation Area). [name] am not convinced that the proposal before me is the only means of securing the appeal dwelling’s optimum viable use, pursuant to paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

I therefore find that the proposal is contrary to Policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan which requires all new development to be well designed and, in particular, respect the character of the City through, amongst other things, relating well to the geography and history of Portsmouth and its Conservation Areas.

Having regard and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.