Appeal 3317630

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and the local area.

Castleview is a residential street lined mainly by hipped roof semi-detached houses of similar design. No 30 is a typical example. The proposal would add second floor level accommodation by extending the hipped roof to form a side gable and adding a flat roofed box dormer structure at the back.

The Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) advises at EX33 that alterations to the main roof of a house by changing its shape will not normally be permitted – but the SPD also confirms that each planning application will be considered on its own individual merits. In this case, such a large number of hip to gable extensions have taken place locally that this aspect of the proposal would be fully in line with existing local character. It would appear as a normal and unremarkable aspect of the evolving street scene.

EX34 of the SPD says that dormer windows should be in proportion to the size of the roof, occupying no more than 50% of the roof space and with set backs from the sides, ridge and eaves. The proposed dormer in this case would occupy almost the full extent of the rear roof slope, with only slight set backs at the top and bottom and no significant set backs at the sides, in conflict with the SPD’s guidance. It would appear as a full, flat roofed second storey extension at the back, rather than as a dormer structure inset into the roof slope.

I saw a number of other rear box dormers on [address] during my site visit and have looked at the examples provided by the appellant. None of these appear to be as extensive as is proposed here. Many of those other dormer extensions are screened from view from the street, so that they are only glimpsed.

In contrast, the proposed rear dormer at No 30 would be prominent in views from [address] due to the house’s location on the outside of a bend and forward of the next house, No 28. In this situation, it would be an intrusive, uncharacteristic and bulky structure, detracting from the street scene.

I conclude that, although I see no objection to the proposed hip to gable extension on its own, the addition of the rear dormer structure as proposed would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the building and the local area. The overall proposal therefore conflicts with the shared aims of Core Strategy Core Policy 8, Local Plan for Slough policies EN1, EN2 and H15 and the SPD, to secure high quality design for extensions, which should be compatible with the original structure and respect its surroundings.

I have considered all other matters raised and recognise the reasonable desire of the appellants to improve their home. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.