Appeal 3321692

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of hip to gable roof conversion, raising of roof height and roof alterations to create enlarged accommodation in roof space with two front dormer window and Juliet balcony to rear at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 21/06434/FUL dated 11 May 2021 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan numbered 04B.

The main issues are the effect of the development upon: • the character and appearance of the area and • living conditions for users of the adjacent dwelling ‘Winbury’.

[site address] is a residential street populated by a mix of early-mid-twentieth century dwellings, variously extended and of both single and two storey design, detached and semi-detached. The most notable characteristic of this residential area is the underlying topography. [site address] runs downhill past the appeal site in a southerly direction such that the dwellings adjacent to ‘Glaydens’ are significantly lower and higher on its south and north sides respectively. Glaydens is recognisably a ‘bungalow’ typology albeit significantly extended at its rear and adapted to the levels by a partial lower floor level adjacent to ‘Winbury’, the dwelling on its southern side, which appears to have similar origins but with roof alterations to accommodate an additional floor level.

Noting the information provided by the appellant but also from my own observations it is clear that the surrounding area incorporates a range of altered and original built form, and that these adaptations and changes have removed, to the limited extent that the topography and mix of designs might have allowed such, architectural consistency. However, the current character and appearance of the area is defined by cumulative change resulting in an established residential area which has absorbed such without individual changes being visually obtrusive. Although the Council refer to the proposal as ‘top heavy’ and ‘not subservient’ such terms fail to recognise that a comprehensive reworking of an existing building (rather than a presumed ‘extension’ which would necessarily need to visually integrate with an original built form) can be successful in certain circumstances. The proposal introduces a new and proportionately designed roof form which would not be out of keeping with the surrounding development. On that basis, I do not consider the proposed alterations to Glaydens would detract from the character and appearance of the area and therefore find no conflict with Policy DM35 (Placemaking and [name]) of the Wycombe District Local Plan ([name] 2019) (WDLP) and the relevant parts of the Householder Planning and Design Guidance SPD Adopted January 2020 (SPD).

The Council confirm the proposal that the development would accord with the Council’s light angle guidelines when considered on plan, but suggest that the height difference between the plots would generate an overbearing impact from the added roof volume. The appellant points to the significance of orientation in this regard as the appeal site and immediate neighbours sit on what amounts to a significant south-facing slope. This provides, to varying degrees, a greater availability of open sky (and therefore sun and daylight) than would otherwise be the case. Whilst this would not, of itself, ensure any development would be acceptable in terms of the physical relationship between these adjacent dwellings, the upper storey resulting from the proposed works would be in broad alignment with Winbury and the raised roof at the rear of Glaydens would be set well away from the shared boundary, on the northern side of its plot.

Overall, noting that the Council’s observations as to the absence of other impacts, I conclude there would be no significant harm to the amenity or utility of the rear garden area of Winbury as a consequence of the proposal and that the resulting development would not be unacceptably overbearing or dominant. I conclude there would be no conflict with Policy DM35 of the WDLP in this regards nor, noting my earlier conclusion, with the development plan as a whole. On that basis, and taking all matters raised into account, the appeal succeeds subject to the usual plans and timing conditions.