Appeal 3343177

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is within the [address] Conservation Area (the CA) wherein I have a statutory duty under Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. In addition, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires great weight to be given to the conservation of heritage assets.

The Council considers that the proposed rear extension, rear facing dormer windows and porch are acceptable and would not harm the character or appearance of the host building and the CA. On this basis, the main issues are the effect of the proposed side hip to gable roof extension on the character and appearance of the host building and the CA.

The significance of the CA is mainly derived from the innovative methods of construction used for the majority of the houses in the area, its suburban layout based on a radial road system and the trees and green spaces which complement the street environment. The area comprises predominantly of residential properties characterised by their large, steeply pitched hipped roofs. The houses display a strong uniformity of architectural design which, combined with the cohesive layout of the estate, contribute to the distinctiveness of the area. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - Appeal Decision APP/Q3060/D/24/3343177

The appeal relates to a detached single storey dwelling with front and rear gardens. The proposal would involve extending one side of the roof and altering it from a hipped to a gable roof. The proposed gable roof would not be sympathetic to the design and character of the host building and would create a discordant feature to the property by reason of its inharmonious shape. The proposed form of the roof would severely disrupt the cohesion and balance in the design of the existing building.

The gable roof extension would also be significantly at odds with the prevailing character of the bungalows in the surrounding area which display a strong degree of uniformity in their roof form. Consequently, the proposed gable roof would be apparent in the street scene and look harmfully out of place. The use of gable roofs is not prevalent in the surrounding bungalows, although a small number in the street have front gable features, as is the case of the appeal property. However, all the bungalows in the street have hipped side elevations including the small number of properties with the front gable features.

The appellant argues that the proposed scheme mirrors that of [site address] (No 86). However, there is a clear material difference between the appeal proposal and No 86 in that its side hipped roofs have not been altered to a gable roof albeit that one of the hipped roof elevations includes a large dormer window. Critically, No 86 does not have a gable roof so its impact is not the same. The appellant has also drawn my attention to 7 and [address] (Nos 7 and 8) both of which have a side gable roof. However, there are clear material differences between these properties and the appeal proposal, including that Nos 7 and 8 form a pair of semi-detached bungalows located at the end of a cul-de-sac. Their gable roofs largely match in material, design and proportion creating a cohesive and symmetrical design. Furthermore, I do not have full details of the schemes at No 86 and Nos 7 and 8 so cannot be certain that the circumstances, including the development plan policy context, are the same.

The appellant has also referred me to two examples of gable roof extensions in the wider CA at 1861 and [address] on the edge of the conservation area. However, these properties are located in a part of the CA where the housing design is more mixed and contain modern two storey brick-built dwellings with gable roofs. These do not exist within the near vicinity of the appeal site. Furthermore, the planning permission for the extension at No 186 pre-dates the Nottingham City Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document Local Plan Part 2 (January 2020) (the LAPP) and the Broxtowe Borough, Gedling Borough, Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 Local Plan (September 2014) (the ACS) so the policy context is different. I am not aware of the full details of the scheme at No 196 so cannot be sure that it represents a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. In any event, I have determined the appeal proposal on its own merits.

The bungalows in the street are strongly characterised by hipped roofs and there is a clear consistency in the roofscape which is a predominant characteristic of the wider CA. The proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and its significance. I judge 1 Planning Application Ref 9/03393/PFUL3. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - Appeal Decision APP/Q3060/D/24/3343177 the harm to be less than substantial within the terminology of the Framework. Paragraph 208 of the Framework states that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets, that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant has not identified whether any potential harms to the CA would amount to substantial harm, total loss of less than substantial harm and has not explicitly identified any public benefits. Their appeal statement suggests that the proposal would provide a modern house suitable for a growing family. However, this would primarily be a private benefit to occupiers of the property, so I am only able to give this very limited weight.

Compliance with the development plan in relation to outdoor amenity space, internal space and the living conditions of neighbouring occupants weighs neither in favour nor against the proposal and is therefore considered neutral.

Paragraph 205 of the Framework establishes that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset, and the very limited benefits I have found would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed side hip to gable roof extension would harm the character and appearance of the host building and would thus fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. Hence, it would conflict with Policies 10 and 11 of the ACS and Policies DE1, DE2 and HE1 of the LAPP. Together, these policies, amongst other matters, require development to reflect the local character and distinctive identity of the area and conserve or enhance the historic environment and heritage assets.

The appellant contends that as the appeal site is on a larger than usual plot, it would benefit from expansion to larger family housing, particularly as the Council is seeking to limit the conversion of single family dwellings to houses in multiple occupation (HMO) in the area. However, there is also strong support in the ACS, LAPP and Framework to ensure that development preserves or enhances heritage assets.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.