Appeal 3282761

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the street scene.

The appeal property, [site address] is a semi-detached, hipped roofed bungalow located in a residential area. It has existing flat roofed single storey out shots to the rear.

The appellant proposes the conversion of the roof space to provide habitable accommodation along with a first-floor extension. The extension would extend from the bay window to bedroom 4 at the front and oversale the flat roof kitchen extension to the rear.

I note that the roof of the proposed extension would be no higher than the ridge line of the main roof and a light-weight cladding is proposed, typical of many dormer additions. However, due to its three-dimensional form, height and length the proposed first floor extension would appear as a large, bulky, utilitarian and dominant addition to the host property.

Further, the roof of the host property would be subsumed by the front to back extension. It would therefore denude the symmetry of the pair of semi-detached bungalows.

I conclude for the reasons set out that the proposed first-floor addition would cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host property and the semi-detached pair of bungalows. It would thereby cause harm to the character and appearance of the street scene.

To allow it would be contrary to the objectives Policies DBE3 and DBE6 of the Canterbury District Local Plan ([name] 2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to amongst other things a requirement for high quality design solutions appropriate to the site as well as the character setting and context of the site.

The appellant has referred me to the wide range of local building styles, differing roof profiles along with other large roof extensions and dormers nearby. Whatever the background to those cases, they are not an appropriate justification for permitting the extension here, which I have considered on its individual design merits and its impact on the host property, the semi-detached pair and the character and appearance of the street scene.

Furthermore, from the examples given most comprise dormers set into the existing roof slope, thereby retaining the three-dimensional form and character of the host property. These are in direct contrast to the large, dominant first floor addition proposed here that would subsume the roof of the existing bungalow.

I appreciate that the proposed extension would not only provide additional space for the appellant’s growing family but, going forward, support for the appellant’s disabled aunt. [name] am sympathetic to these matters, on balance, they do not outweigh the harm the extension as designed would cause.

The appellant has drawn to my attention concerns relating to how the Council processed the original application for planning permission. These however are not relevant to my consideration of the planning merits of this appeal.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the lack of any objection to the proposal, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.