Appeal 3332186

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for: Alterations to roof of previous rear extension at No. [site address] in accordance with application ref. 2023/0388, dated 14 August 2023, 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 following approved plans: Existing Plan Drg. No. 23/745/01 dated 7 August 2023. Proposed Plan Drg. No. 23/745/02A revision dated 22 August 2023.

The decision turns on the likely effect of the proposed roof extension on the character and appearance of the dwelling and its immediate surroundings.

The appeal concerns No. [site address] , a 2 storey mid-terrace stone built house. Whilst the house fronts onto the main [address], the rear of the terrace is serviced by a wide rough surfaced roadway that runs parallel to [address]. The rear roadway also serves a mix of domestic garages, outbuildings and rear gardens to the terrace. Open grazing land extends up and beyond to the east.

No. 62 has a 2 storey rear extension about 2m deep to the full width of the house. This extension was built under a continuation of the rear slate roof slope. There is a small single storey porch built onto the rear extension.

It is proposed to build a wide pitched roof dormer in the rear extension roof slope, its deep fenestration running down into the extension’s rear wall.

The Council said the proposed extra roof extension would be a visually jarring, incongruous and unsympathetic addition. Although they said the additional extension to the roof of No. 62 would not reflect the character or appearance of either the host property or the surrounding built environment, it is hard to discern any uniformity or homogeneity that forms that character. The houses, their rear extensions, including roof dormers and the outbuildings on the other side of the access roadway at the rear of this [address] terrace show a variability, a lack of consistency or fixed pattern, that in my view, produces an interesting and not displeasing aspect. There is not a uniformity of design and form at the rear of the terrace that suggests a severe restriction should be applied to the proposed addition to the rear of No. 62.

In my view, the proposed alteration and addition to the existing somewhat inelegant rear extension would not materially harm either the look of the rear of the existing house at No. [address] of houses in which it sits. I find no significant conflict with guidance in Local Plan Policy HS9 (a) or (b) on house extensions or with NPPF intentions to achieve well-designed and beautiful places. Although the proposed pitched roof dormer to No. 62 would be large, it would remain subservient to the main extended roof of the house, thus complying with para. 8 of the Council’s Rossendale Alterations & Extensions to [name] (2008).

I conclude that the appeal should succeed. Planning permission is granted subject to the general condition limiting the duration of the permission being applied, (s.91 of the Act), as is a condition relating to the submitted plans defining the project.