Appeal 3332245

I note that the description of the development contained in the Council’s decision notice is different to that given in the planning application form. The Council’s description is more detailed and precise and although the application form is not incorrect, I have used the Council’s wording in my decision.

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the streetscene

The appeal property is a detached two-storey dwelling, which is situated in a densely built-up part of the city. Land uses in the vicinity of the site are mixed with a school and factory opposite. A single-storey bungalow (number 18) abuts the site on one side, with a two-storey dwelling (number 24) on the other side.

Although there is a mix of building styles along [address], the residential properties display a degree of uniformity by having hipped roofs. Whilst there are some exceptions, the hipped roofs are a distinctive and important feature of the streetscene.

The proposal would substantially enlarge the existing dwelling by raising the roof height, changing the hipped roof to a gabled roof, and constructing dormer extensions at the front and rear. Consequently, both the scale and appearance of the dwelling would change.

Policy CS03 of the Council’s Core Strategy 2014 (CS) requires the design of new development to be of high quality that contributes positively to the built environment in terms of (amongst other things) its scale and height. I consider this policy to accord with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023, which contains similar provisions.

The Council do not object the proposed increase in the roof height of the property and I have no reason to disagree with that view, given that the existing ridge height appears to be lower than the neighbouring two-storey dwelling at number 24.

However, I concur with the Council that the proposed increase in the mass of the property, principally by constructing a gabled roof, would result in the appeal dwelling appearing over dominant and at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of the streetscene. It would also visually dominate and dwarf the bungalow at number 18, exacerbating the differences in the scale of the properties.

In reaching my decision, I have considered other examples of extended properties along [address] that have been brought to my attention by the appellant. I am not persuaded that the examples at numbers 9 and 11 should be followed, as they do not contribute positively to the streetscene. Regarding number 139, the property is the end of a terrace and its relationship with the neighbouring dwellings is, therefore, different. There is also a greater separation distance between number 139 and the neighbouring single-storey building.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the appearance of the streetscene and that it would conflict with Policy CS03 of the CS. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.