Appeal 3320761

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing property and on the streetscene.

The appeal property (number 12) is a two-storey house, which is situated in a residential. Dwellings in the locality vary in terms of their age, scale and appearance. The site abuts the [address] Conservation Area.

Number [address], but it is still clearly visible in the [address] streetscene. The design of the original dwelling is traditional with a hipped roof with a projecting gabled section at the front.

Planning permission was granted by the Council on 4 August 2020 for the development as described in the heading above. The approved extension incorporated a hipped roof with a flat section on top. However, from the road it would have the appearance of a traditional hipped roof structure.

The appellant seeks to vary condition 2 of the existing permission, which requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. In lieu of the roof originally approved, the appellant seeks approval for a flat roof. I noted at my site visit the extension has been constructed with a flat roof.

Policies SD1, LD1 and LD4 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – [name] (CS) generally seek (amongst other things) to ensure that new developments reflect local character and that heritage assets and their settings are conserved and, where possible, enhanced. These policies are consistent with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (The Framework), which requires developments to be visually attractive, be sympathetic to local character and history and add to the overall quality of the area (paragraph 130).

Although the appellant has drawn my attention to other flat-roofed structures in the locality, my observations at my site visit were that first-floor flat roofs in prominent positions are not a common feature (notwithstanding the example given in [address]). Many of the existing flat roofs that I observed were on single-storey buildings or extensions, such as garages or car ports. Consequently, they are not comparable to the appeal proposal.

I am not fully persuaded that the proposal adversely affects the setting or significance of the Conservation Area, given that it is located on the fringes of the Area and any views towards, or from, the heritage asset are not harmed by the development. Nevertheless, I consider that the flat roof is an alien and discordant feature that is at odds with the character and appearance of the original dwelling. It appears out of context with its surroundings and it fails to add to the overall quality of the area. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with the provisions of the CS and with The Framework, as referred to above.

In reaching my decision, I have considered the difficulties that the appellant has with gaining access onto adjoining land in order to construct the approved hipped roof structure. However, this does not outweigh my findings above.

For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be dismissed.