Appeal 3343854

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development in the banner above from the Council’s decision notice as it is more comprehensive than that included on the planning application form.

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

The appeal property forms one half of a pair of semi-detached houses, which sit on a prominent corner location within [address]. Both dwellings include a dominant and currently unaltered room form.

Due to its excessive width, height and depth, the proposed dormer extension would be disproportionately large and would appear excessively bulky. It’s off-centre position within the roof plane, including a minimal set back from the edge of the roof, would contribute to its incongruous appearance.

The structure would appear obtrusive as it would dominate the appeal property and would unacceptably imbalance the pair of semi-detached houses. As such, it would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and streetscene.

I have considered a number of examples of front roof extensions in the vicinity, cited by the appellant in support of his scheme. Dormer roof extensions have been constructed within the roof planes of both adjoining semi-detached properties, Nos 38 and [address]. However, unlike the appeal proposal, these structures are located centrally within the roof planes and set back further from the eaves. Therefore, they sit more comfortably within the context of both those properties and the streetscene than the appeal proposal would.

The roof extension to No [address] is set well-below the main ridge line of that property and therefore appears less bulky than the appeal proposal would.

No [address] benefits from a staggered building line, so is set well back from the front elevation of the adjoining property. Therefore, the dormer extension within the roof of No 68 is significantly less prominent within the streetscene than the appeal proposal would be.

All of these examples fundamentally differ in circumstances from the appeal proposal. In any event, each development must be considered on its own merits. As such, I offer them limited weight in support of allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the proposal would unduly harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy CP3 of the Wokingham Borough Local Development Framework Adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010) and Section 4 of the Wokingham Borough Council Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012). Taken together, these requires that extensions must be of an appropriate mass and built form and respond to local character.

I note that the appellant would be willing to include a hipped roof and increase the level of glazing within the proposed roof extension, in an attempt to overcome the Council’s reasons for refusal. However, I must consider the appeal on the basis of the scheme and the plans which were before the Council when it made its decision.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.