Appeal 3321159

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate

The appeal property consists of a replacement dwelling permitted under application 01419/17. The Council advises that the dwelling was not constructed in accordance with the approved plans due to the provision of the ‘roof pike’ which is the subject of this appeal. The description of the proposal laid out on the planning application form is used in the banner heading above but reference to ‘retention of,’ has been removed as it is not a form of development. Since the development has been carried out, retrospective planning permission has been sought. In reaching my decision I have assessed the development as shown on the submitted plans and not as built on site. I am aware that the appeal site is the subject of an [name]. This has no bearing on the consideration of the s78 appeal before me.

The main issue of this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling within a primarily residential area. There is some variety to properties within the wider street scene given the length of [address], with variety in age, style and height including Victorian villas and terraces, inter-war semi-detached dwellings and more modern infill development. However, the appeal site forms a cluster of similarly designed semi-detached properties within this section of [address].

Reference is made to the guidance contained within paragraphs 3.1 and 5.1 of the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (SPD), which state that a well-designed extension should be of a size and scale which is in proportion to the existing house and, sited and designed so as not to have an unacceptable effect on the wider street scene or character of the locality.

The group of similar semi-detached dwellings of which the appeal site forms part, share a uniform building line and an overall symmetrical form including hipped roofs, despite some alterations over time including the introduction of differing facing materials and the addition of porches.

The appeal site no longer matches its attached neighbour at No [address] in scale or appearance following the previous approvals to extend and then replace the host dwelling1. I also acknowledge that the roof pike is a relatively modest extension and proportionally it is a subservient addition to both the front elevation and roofscape of the appeal site. Nevertheless, the roof pike due to its vertical and forward projection adds a jarring feature that breaks the plane of the roof, contrary to the prevalent pattern of uninterrupted hipped roofs. In this regard it results in an incongruous addition at roof level, exacerbating and emphasising the unbalanced composition of the pair of semi-detached properties to which the appeal property belongs. The effect of this is particularly evident in views close to the site within [address] as well as those from [address] and whilst such views are relatively localised it does not diminish the harm that is exerted within the street scene.

For the above reasons, the development has an adverse affect on the character and appearance of the area, as described above. As such it would fail to comply with Policies CG3 and RA1 of [name]; Development Plan Document 2011 which seek amongst other things, to ensure that development has regard to the overall built character and quality of the area including the street-scaping of existing housing, objectives shared with the SPD.

Photographs of dwellings at [address], [address], [address] and [address] have been presented to illustrate that roof pikes are found elsewhere within the Bolton area. Nonetheless, all of the examples provided relate to detached properties that are not located within the same context as the appeal site and thus they are not comparable. Gable roofs and roof pikes are common architectural features used in historic as well as contemporary buildings. However, that does not justify the inclusion of one here, where the context is of simple, uninterrupted hipped roofs belonging to semi-detached dwellings.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, and all other considerations, the appeal is dismissed.