Appeal 3305716

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal includes altering the roof from a hip to a gable and adding a dormer extension in the rear roof. A Certificate of Lawfulness has been granted to change the roof from a hip to a gable subject to the details submitted with that application1.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached house and its gardens located in an area of similar 1930’s residential properties. [site address] and the houses in the area generally have hipped roofs although there are a few examples where these have been altered. The proposed dormer bedroom extension would involve altering the roof from a hip to a gable and adding a flat roofed dormer extension to the rear.

As this proposal relates to one half of a semi-detached pair, altering the roof of No 14 from a hip to a gable would unbalance the pair of houses and appear incongruous in the area. However, the Council has issued a Certificate of Lawfulness which would allow this part of the proposal to be constructed independently.

Notwithstanding this, the proposed dormer extension would extend across most of the rear of the roof including that part which would be altered from a hip to a gable. It would be set slightly below the height of ridge of the roof and would be set back from the main rear wall of the house but it would be a large 1 Application No: 22LP/2015. flat roofed addition that together with the altered roof shape would appear out of keeping with the design of the existing house, the semi-detached pair and the area generally. I appreciate that the dormer would be to the rear of the house but it would still be visible in part from the street and it would be visible from other properties in the surrounding area.

The proposed window to the new bedroom would not align with the window below which accentuates the incongruous appearance of the dormer. The appellant suggests that revised fenestration details could be dealt with by condition. This would involve altering the plans and although I accept that this would be a relatively minor alteration, no alternative scheme is before me. Notwithstanding this, the alteration to fenestration would not overcome the harm I have identified in terms of size, design and overall appearance. I find that the large dormer in an area where dormers are not characteristic to the design of the houses in the area would have a harmful effect.

As referred to above, other properties have been altered by hip to gable extensions. I saw that [address] has a gable roof and a dormer but the adjoining semi-detached house, No 28 has also been extended albeit in a different way. Also, [address] has a visible hip to gable extension and a rear dormer but the adjoining house, No 44 has a flat roofed two-storey side extension. Any symmetry or balance between these pairs therefore no longer exists due to the various alterations and extensions that have taken place to each of the houses. I also note the dormer at [address] but this is a different design of house and I do not know the circumstances relevant to this. In any case, I do not find the alterations to any of the houses referred to directly comparable with this proposal and moreover are not representative of the overall character and appearance of the area which as I have described above is mainly that of hipped roofs.

The alteration to the roof could be made in accordance with the Certificate of Lawfulness and provides a fall-back position in part. However, the proposed dormer together with the alterations to change the roof from a hip to a gable would have a more harmful effect than the fall-back position alone. It would fail to complement the style of the dwelling and would not be in keeping with the host dwelling or the surrounding area as required by Policy H8 of the Liverpool Local Plan2.

Whilst the dormer would meet some of the criteria in the Council’s SPG for House Extensions3, such as the lower roof and set back from the rear wall of the house, it would fail to harmonise with the existing dwelling or the area generally and therefore for the reasons set out above, it would conflict with the aims of the SPG.

I acknowledge that there are no other matters raised by the Council or any third parties such as residential amenity or highway safety but the lack of harm in relation to these matters does not overcome the harm I have identified in my main issue. 2 Liverpool City Council – Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033, [name] 2022. 3 Liverpool Unitary Development Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 1 [name].

For the reasons given above, and having regard to the development plan and all other considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.