Appeal 3347953

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

I observed on my site visit that works for a hip to gable extension and dormer had commenced on site. For the avoidance of doubt, I have made this recommendation based on the proposed plans submitted with the appeal.

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

The appeal dwelling is a two storey semi-detached property with a gable roof form, finished in cream render and red tiles. The adjoining property is of a comparable style in its design and finish. The surrounding area predominately consists of similar two storey dwellings which creates a generally consistent character to the area.

The hip to gable and dormer extension would occupy a substantial portion of the southwest roof space with the ridge height increased as part of the gable conversion. The dormer would be large in its depth and width resulting in a large, boxy and dominant addition to the roof slope. It would appear as an overbearing extension and adversely alter the existing dwelling’s character and design through the introduction of an additional gable and accompanying dormer. Although the proposed additions to the roof would use appropriate materials, they would not respond positively to the original architecture or roof form of the host building. This is further exacerbated by the encroachment on the existing southwestern gable, a key design feature of the existing dwelling.

The southwestern elevation of the appeal property is clearly visible and a prominent feature when viewed from [address] in approaching the junction with [address] in particular. The addition of the hip to gable and dormer would break the existing uniformity of uninterrupted roof slopes presented by the side and rear gables of the dwellings facing onto [address], and because of its size and detailed design would appear as an incongruous feature.

For the reasons as set out, the hip to gable extension and dormer has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. As such it fails to comply with the relevant provisions of Policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019) and the Saved Unitary Development Plan Review (2016) policies GP5 and BD6 and the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) which all require development to be compatible with the host property and the surrounding area. The proposal would fail to accord with guidance set out in HDG1 of the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, which seeks to ensure all extensions respect the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of the main dwelling and the locality.

I accept that there is already a variety of existing dormer designs within the surrounding area. Nonetheless, these are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme as none of these dormers surround a gable roof form. Furthermore, I am mindful that each development must be assessed on its own merits. I am therefore satisfied that these other extensions do not justify development that harms the character and appearance of the area.

I have also noted the appellant’s submission in relation to the creation of more usable living space in the attic rooms. [name] do not doubt that this would be the case, it does not outweigh the harm that I have identified in relation to the

The appellant also refers to a Permitted Development ‘fall back’ position of being able to change the main roof from a hip to a gable under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GDPO) Schedule 2 Part 1 Class B. When reviewing the alternative scheme, it is notable that the dormer in this instance would occupy an open roof slope as opposed to enveloping a gable roof form. As a result, I consider the fallback position would not be as harmful as the proposal to the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.