Appeal 3330597

The appeal is dismissed.

The Government published on 19 December 2023 a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Neither the appellant nor the Council have made any further submissions regarding the revised Framework, and I am satisfied that any references made to the revised Framework within this decision would not be unreasonable to the parties.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

[address] is a residential main road to the south east of Rushden. The appeal property (No 84) is a detached, bay fronted, two storey house situated in an elevated position along with its neighbours, set behind a sloping driveway which runs along the side of the house and which benefits from a long rear garden. The house has a double hipped roof, which is a feature common to a number of neighbouring dwellings, albeit there is some variety in architectural styles along this section of the road. Many of the neighbouring properties have been subject to extensions and at the site visit that most had successfully incorporated hipped roof designs (such as the immediate neighbouring property to the south).

The appeal proposals will result in the addition of a substantial, full width extension of 5m, which will include a loft conversion to add an enlarged living space on the ground floor and two further double bedrooms on the first floor and in the loft.

In order to facilitate the new loft conversion and extension, there is a requirement to raise the roof ridge height by 600mm. [name] agree with the council that much of the bulk and mass of the extension would be hidden from view to the rear, I can see that the alterations to the roof of the host dwelling would be very visible within the street scene.

Given the fact that the host dwelling is very much part of the prevailing character and design of [address], I have concerns that the proposed roof design would not align with the rest of the house.

I agree with the council that the proposed alterations to the roof of the host dwelling would be harmful in terms of creating a top-heavy and overbearing design which would undermine the appearance of both the host dwelling and wider area.

As a result, the proposals would offend para 1.9 of the [name] Planning Document (2020) (SPD) where it requires that alterations to the shape of a roof should respect the original design and not be too dominant within its surroundings. I also consider the proposals would be contrary to Policy 8(d) ([address] [name]) of the [name] (2016) (JCS) which seeks to support development that accounts for a site’s immediate and wider context and local character.

For the reasons given and having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.