Appeal 3281364

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.

The appeal property is a semi-detached house with a hipped roof that has previously been extended to the side and the rear. Properties along [address] are mainly semi-detached or detached houses. These vary in their design but apart from Nos 108 – 115, the majority of houses have hipped roofs and this forms part of the character of the area. Although many houses have been extended in a variety of ways, the extensions generally have retained the hipped roof design, thus respecting the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area.

The proposed dormer would extend virtually the full width of the rear roof plane and would project at the side so that at the front the main roof of the house would be changed to a pitched rather than a hipped roof. The proposed alteration to the roof that would result from the proposal would therefore be an incongruous feature that would be out of character with the surrounding area. In particular, the change in the roof form would unbalance the pair of semi-detached houses to the visual detriment of the area.

I note that the attached house has a similar rear dormer. However, this has been incorporated without needing to change the roof form and so, when viewed from the road, this neighbouring house retains its hipped roof design.

The dormer would contain 2 windows, one of which would be virtually the full height of the dormer. This would be out of keeping with the size and shape of the fenestration on the first floor of the house. In addition, unlike the dormer on the adjacent house, the position of the windows would not align with the existing windows, giving the rear elevation a cluttered and disparate appearance.

Therefore, I consider that the proposed extension would adversely affect the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy QE7 of the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted July 2014) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that developments reinforce local distinctiveness and harmonise with existing buildings. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure developments are sympathetic to the local character and the surrounding built environment.

In support of the appeal my attention has been drawn to two other dormers: one on [address] and the other on [address]. The latter, in particular, is not in the immediate vicinity of the appeal property and so has a different context. However, I observed that both of these, to differing degrees maintained the hipped roof design on the main house and so do not represent a direct parallel to the appeal scheme.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.