Appeal 3289959

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development was amended following submission of the application; I have utilised the amended description.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; and, • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring property; specifically, the occupants of no. [address].

The appeal site is a bungalow with accommodation in the roof. It fronts [address], a residential street with a varied mix of dwelling types and sizes. [address] has an open and verdant character by virtue of the varied setback of dwellings from the road, and the mature landscaping and trees within the public realm and private gardens. The appeal proposal seeks to extend the roof across the existing single storey attached garage to create additional accommodation at first floor level and would include a pitched roofed dormer within the front roofslope. The proposal also seeks to construct a single storey flat roof rear extension, with raised roof lanterns.

The host dwelling fills almost the entire width of the plot at ground floor level and the first-floor roof extension would simply fill a gap at first floor level. However, despite the relatively low height and low profile of the dwelling in contrast to neighbouring properties, the side-to-side roof pitch emphasises the width of the existing dwelling. Further extending the width of the roof at the same ridge height would exacerbate the sense of plot coverage and width at first floor level. Whilst there is a varied degree of plot coverage within the area, the appeal proposal would create an incongruous, cramped appearance due to its close proximity with the boundary and the extended two storey neighbouring dwelling. Moreover, it would close a gap at first floor level within the streetscene which contributes to the vernacular sense of openness.

Whilst the pitched roof dormer is not typical of the style of dormer utilised on chalet type bungalows such as the host dwelling, there is significant architectural variety within the vicinity and pitched roof dormers of a modest scale are not out of keeping with the character of the area.

Therefore, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. As such, it is contrary to policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies (CS), adopted in 2012, and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These policies seek, amongst other things, to secure high-quality design which respects local character.

The deepest projection of the proposed single storey rear extension is close to the boundary with no.[address]. Whilst the proposal would have a flat roof, its eaves height, depth and closest raised lantern would have an overbearing and imposing impact on the living conditions of no.[address]. It would particularly affect the patio and garden area closest to the house, as well as outlook from the kitchen. This would be exacerbated by the topography and the relative ground levels. Whilst there is currently a hedge in place between these two properties, it would not effectively screen the highest element of the rear extension. Any future removal of the hedge would also result in direct or perceived overlooking of the rear garden of no.[address] due to the proposed facing flank windows.

For these reasons, the appeal proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. The appeal proposal is therefore contrary to policy DM9 of the CS and the Framework. These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development respects the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the appeal proposal is contrary to the relevant policies of the Development Plan, in so far as they are consistent with the Framework. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.