Appeal 3310611

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs was made by [name] against [name] and Chester Council. This application is the subject of a separate

The description of development above is taken from the application form. However, the plans and appellant’s statement indicate that the proposal is to convert the garage, insert a window in place of the garage door, erect a pitched roof over the garage and erect a single storey extension behind the garage, to the side of the property. I have assessed the proposal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is one of a pair of semi-detached bungalows at the end of a group of three similar pairs. They all have hipped roofs with forward projecting gable sections which mirror the other half of the pair. The property is within a residential area made up of small groups of houses and bungalows. Each group has its individual context and character within the wider residential estate. Overall, the small groups make a positive contribution to the character of the area, as a whole.

The appeal property has a flat roof garage attached to the side, off the forward projecting section. Even if I were to accept that the garage is part of the original building, as a flat roofed garage it is currently subservient to the existing dwelling and the pair of bungalows can easily be read as a pair. I also saw a number of other flat roofed garages within the wider area during my site visit, including at the neighbouring property, [address]. The garages are all seen as secondary structures, even if they were built at the same time as the original properties. These flat roofed garages are part of the character and context of the estate.

The proposal to erect a pitched roof over the garage would not alter the footprint of the dwelling. However, it is still an extension and an element of new build to the side of the dwelling. The proposed roof would be off the forward projecting section of the original building, forward of the original hipped part of the property. Despite being lower in ridge height and of matching tiles, it would substantially alter the appearance of the front of the existing building. It would be more prominent than the existing flat roof. The addition of the roof would unbalance the pair of the existing dwellings to a greater extent than the existing flat roofed garage. Moreover, this part of the building would no longer be subordinate to the dwelling and would compete for prominence in the street scene.

The current garage is not harmful as it forms part of the character of the wider area. The addition of the roof would not enhance or respect this group of houses nor contribute positively to the character or legibility of the area. I have no substantive evidence before me that the proposed roof addition is required to provide acceptable living conditions for the occupiers of the appeal property, in terms of sufficient internal height, or that the roof addition is required to enable the appellant to meet their current and future needs. Furthermore, I also have no conclusive evidence that the addition of the roof extension would be permitted development and I have considered what is before me in this S78 appeal.

As it is wholly behind the existing garage the proposed single storey extension to the rear would not adversely affect the appearance of the existing dwelling nor the character of the area. The presence of boundary treatments and the garage to [address], and the separation distances to the dwellings on the opposite side of the road, would also ensure that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. However, this would not justify the roof extension.

For the reasons given above the proposed roof extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing property and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ENV6 of the [name] & Chester Council Local Plan ([name]) [name], 2015; and Policies DM3 and DM21 of the [name] & Chester Council Local Plan ([name]), [name] and [name], 2019, which, taken together, require high quality design which respects local character and requires extensions to be in keeping with, and subordinate to, the original dwelling.

The proposal would also be at odds with the guidance in the [name] & Chester Council Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and [name] (2021) which seeks to ensure that extensions are subordinate to the existing dwelling and do not disrupt the symmetry of a group of dwellings. Furthermore, it would be contrary to the guidance on good design in the National Planning Policy Framework.

For the reasons given above I have found that the proposal would be contrary to the development plan, as a whole, and the National Planning Policy Framework. There are no other material considerations that would indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.