Appeal 3333111

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the local area, having regard to the [site address] Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC).

The appeal site relates to a two-storey, semi-detached house on Woodland Way in a residential area close to [site address] station, shops and other facilities. On this side of the road (as far as the junction with [address]) dwellings are semi-detached and of considerable variety in terms of their design and detailing. Many have been previously extended at roof level.

Given the diversity in built form I consider that the addition to the roof would not appear incongruous. To create subservience, the scheme would be set below the main ridgeline of the host property, back from the front roofslope and away from the eaves to the side. To my mind, it would visually connect with the overall appearance of the host dwelling, without dominating it, and respond to the original design characteristics.

I recognise that an imbalance between the appeal dwelling and the adjoining semi would be created at roof level. However, many other houses along Woodland Way have extensions of varying scale and form, and are part of a pair of semi-detached units where only one of the two has been altered. I am satisfied that such development has integrated satisfactorily into the setting. As such contrasts are numerous in the streetscene, I am of the view that the development would not appear out of keeping in the context of the neighbourhood. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

The proposals would include the formation of a dormer window in the rear roofslope of the dwelling. Notwithstanding my reasoning in respect of the side extension, I am of the view that this large dormer feature would dominate the roof of the property. It would be significantly larger than the more modest dormers on dwellings to either side, as shown in the photos submitted in the grounds of appeal. Moreover, the fenestration to the rear elevation is misaligned, with the openings offset in relation to those in the floor below. All of which would be clearly visible from the private amenity spaces of surrounding houses, appearing boxy and bulky, and having an intrusive effect by virtue of the scale and extent across the roof of the building.

I acknowledge those other matters that have been advanced in support of the development; there would be no adverse harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of surrounding properties, the materials proposed would match those of the existing property, and the changes to the layout of the dwelling would meet living requirements for the appellant's family. However, none of these points could justify the harm I have identified above.

Therefore, although the side extension is acceptable, I conclude that the rear dormer window would result in harm to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the local area, having regard to the ASRC. This would be contrary to Policies 6, 37 and 44 of the LP, which seek to ensure proposals meet high standards of design and protect the character of neighbourhoods.

In respect of the above and all other matters raised, I dismiss the appeal.