Appeal 3349145

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as it provided a more succinct, accurate description of the development before me than the one provided in the planning application form.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed increase in ridge height and rear dormer extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider terraced row.

No. [site address] (No.1) is a two-storey, end of terrace dwelling which fronts [address] on its northern side. No.1 has a simple pitched roof form and it is proposed to raise the ridge of the roof to accommodate a rear dormer extension and three bedrooms and a shower-room at second floor.

[address] steeply slopes west to east, such that the roofline of No.[address] is tiered or staggered. I observed on my site visit that whilst the tiered roofline is a characteristic of the terraced row, the increase in the height of the ridgeline is not entirely uniform. Notwithstanding this, the proposed height of around 1.1m would result in the ridge of No.1 sitting noticeably well above its attached neighbour at No.[address]. The resulting change in roof pitch and profile would also appear markedly different from the rest of the terrace. In combination, this would result in an incongruous and unduly prominent addition, which would detract from the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and its wider terrace, particularly when viewed from the west on [address].

The proposed rear dormer would have a flat roof which would align with the ridgeline of the pitched roof (as increased) and would extend almost its full width, set in only minimally from the sides of the roof plane. Further, it would be offset only around 0.4m from the eaves of the new roof. Although the proposed rear dormer would be constructed in matching materials, because of its scale, it would all but consume the rear roof slope and would appear an unsympathetic and injurious addition, detracting from the simple, tiered rear elevation of the terrace which is particularly visible from [address].

I therefore conclude on the main issue that the proposed increase in ridge height and rear dormer extension would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider terraced row. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy 9 of the Oldham Development Plan Document – [name] and Development Management Policies (2011) and Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) which together require that development does not have a significant, adverse impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area, including local townscape, respecting and acknowledging the character of the locality in terms of design, siting, size and scale. Finally, it would conflict with the principles of good design set out in Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

I have had careful regard to the needs of the appellant to add additional bedrooms to accommodate a growing family, and I recognise that the proposals would result in enhanced living accommodation. However, whilst a clear benefit of the proposal, this does not outweigh the significant harm I identify above to the character and appearance of No.[address]. I also note that the occupiers of two neighbouring dwellings intend to similarly extend their dwellings in the future, but in the absence of any further details, I afford this little weight in my consideration of the proposal before me.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.