Appeal 3314596

The appeal is dismissed.

For reasons of clarity, the description of the proposed development is taken from the Council’s Decision Notice and the Appeal Form.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling situated on a spacious plot within a primarily residential area of similar types of dwellings albeit there are a variety of designs. The proposed development includes extensions at the ground and first floor levels at the rear of the property and the erection of a dormer at roof level. Although part of the ground floor rear extension’s roof would be visible from [address] above the proposed single storey side garage, the appeal scheme would not cause material harm to the residential character and appearance of the varied streetscene.

At roof level, the size and siting of the proposed dormer would appear a bulky addition to the side of the gable roof. Its siting and boxy design would not be well related to this roof form.

The footprint of the proposed ground floor rear extension could be appropriate scale of addition to the host property. However, its design with the variations in height and the roof sloping towards the rear of the host property would neither reflect nor respect the character and appearance of this traditionally designed dwelling. From what could be seen during the site visit, no other rear extensions of a similar design were observed within the surrounding area.

The existing catslide style roof would be replaced at first floor level by a dormer window and, in isolation, this could be an acceptable form of alteration to the property. However, when taken together with the rear single storey and roof extensions, the appeal scheme as a whole would represent a bulky and incompatible addition to the host property.

The appellant has referred to the potential for alterations to be undertaken to the property as permitted development associated with a dwelling house. However, there are no alternative proposals to enable an assessment to be made between the appeal scheme and what could be erected as permitted development. Accordingly, limited weight is given to this matter in the determination of this appeal.

For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and, as such, it would conflict with Policies 69(i) and 72(ii) of the City and District of [site address] District Local Plan Review 1994. Amongst other matters, these policies require residential extensions to be compatible with the original building, including by reason of roof form, and take into account the character of its surroundings. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.