Appeal 3346048

The appeal is dismissed.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling situated within a residential area which includes a mix of dwelling types and sizes, including 3- storey buildings and properties with modest sized dormer windows primarily at eaves level. The surrounding dwellings generally possess pitched roofs with both gable and hipped roof forms and variously either eaves or gable elevations facing towards the road.

From the public vantage points, it was not obvious that the dwellings surrounding the property possessed dormer extensions to their roofs. As identified by the appellant, there have been alterations to the roofs of other dwellings within the wider area which were observed during the site visit, including [address] (Ref 09177/20). An appeal decision at [address] has also been provided by the appellant 1 albeit this relates to a bungalow rather than a 2-storey dwelling. These other schemes appear to have been assessed within the context and circumstances of their surrounding area and, as such, this is the approach which is adopted in the determination of this appeal.

The proposed development includes the erection of an extension in the form of a dormer within the roofslope of the property. By reason of the orientation and 1 APP/N4205/D/24/3336817 design of the property, the appeal scheme would be erected within the side elevation which is visually prominent along Forest Drive from the west above the front garden of No. 31. The scale of the proposed development would exceed the guidance in the council’s House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which refers to dormers not occupying more than one quarter of a roof plane.

However, the SPD is only guidance but, in this case, the proposed extension would substantially occupy the roofslope with limited setting back from the ridge, eaves and sides of the roof. The scale and bulk of the appeal scheme would result in the appearance of a third storey which would be accentuated by the single opening with an expanse of boarding or tiles, as now suggested by the appellant. The proposed roof extension would represent a conspicuous and incongruous addition to the property and it would significantly detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding residential development.

For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and, as such, it would conflict with Policy OA3 of Bolton’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document and Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan. Amongst other matters, these policies require development to conserve and enhance the character of the existing physical environment, and to respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.