Appeal 3332130

The appeal is dismissed.

Section E of the appeal form states the description used on the original application form was changed by the Council with the agreement of the appellant. The application was determined on that basis. I have therefore used the description on the Council’s decision notice in the heading above.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated in December 2023, during the course of this appeal. However, insofar as the contents are relevant to this appeal, the Framework has not changed. Therefore, I am satisfied no party would be disadvantaged by not having the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework.

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

[site address] is a detached two-storey house of traditional appearance with a hip roof, two-storey bay window under a projecting gable and an arched brick porch. It is one of several detached and semi-detached houses of similar design in this part of [address]. Together these houses contribute to the street’s generally consistent suburban character, notwithstanding the presence of some other housing styles. According to the [name], this dwelling type is also characteristic of the wider ‘[address]’ character sub area of [name], where hipped roof forms add to the sense of a generous, spacious layout.

The proposed remodelling of the roof would result in a new ridge line materially and visibly higher than both the tops of nearby hip roofs and the ridge lines of other gable roofs in [address]. This increased height in combination with the change in roof form would make the appearance of No [address] scene, in contrast to the other houses of similar design nearby. The new roof would also appear to dominate the host dwelling when viewed alongside other houses of similar dimensions in the street. This would erode the generally consistent and spacious suburban character of this part of [address] and the [address] character sub area of which it is a part.

I understand there is a previous permission for the appeal site1, which involves replacement of the hip roof with a gable roof. I do not have all the details of that permission before me, so I cannot be certain of the roof pitch or height previously approved. Whether or not the proposed roof pitch has increased since that permission, the appeal scheme before me would result in an incongruously higher and deeper gable roof than others in the area. This would detract from the character of the neighbourhood for the reasons given.

I acknowledge the houses at 70 and [address] have gable roofs but are in other respects of a similar design to No 69, albeit without projecting gables. However, the ridge height of those houses is in keeping with the rest of the street, so those roofs do not appear dominant or incongruous like the one proposed in the appeal scheme.

The proposed rear dormer would be very wide and deep relative to the new roof and would be set only just below the new ridge line. This would further dominate the appearance of the host dwelling when viewed from its back garden and those of neighbouring dwellings. The use of matching materials would do little to mitigate the size of the dormer and its harmful visual impact. There is little to substantiate the suggestion that the Council indicated support for the proposed dormer design prior to submission of the application. In any event, I am required to consider the proposal before me on its merits, and the evidence of pre-application engagement does not alter my finding on the detrimental effect of the dormer.

For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. This is contrary to Policy DM16 of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016-2036), which requires extensions or alterations to existing dwellings to respect the character, scale and design of the existing dwelling and the established townscape of the surrounding area. It is also contrary to the [name] & Design Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document, which expects roof extensions to be well proportioned and sympathetic to the roof of the original dwelling, and roof dormers not to over dominate the host roof.

It is also contrary to the Framework, which seeks good design and development that is sympathetic to local character, taking account of local design guidance. 1 Application reference IP/22/00586/FUL

I have found the proposal conflicts with the development plan, read as a whole. No other material considerations, including the Framework, have been shown to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.