Appeal 3354665

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the appeal was lodged, the National Planning Policy Framework has been revised. However, I am satisfied that there are no changes of any consequence for the main issue in this appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed roof extension on the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area.

[address] and surrounding roads comprise a mix of two-storey and three-storey semi-detached houses. No [site address] is a semi-detached dwelling with a full hipped roof. The appeal proposal is to create a part hip-to-gable enlargement connected to a flat roof rear dormer spanning the width of the rear roof slope and extending in height from the eaves to the ridge. Whilst the scheme would partially retain the existing hipped roof profile at the front and the proposed glazing would create a more light-weight feature on the front elevation, the resulting roof form would be harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling, due to its bulky and top-heavy appearance and its disproportionately sized Juliet balcony. The proposal would also create an imbalance in appearance to this pair of semi-detached dwellings. The appellant contends that the design would be innovative and that it would enable the original roof form to remain legible from the street. However, the extension would appear as a discordant feature from public vantage points on [address] and it would dominate the rear elevation of the building when viewed from [address] and residential properties in [address].

The appellant has drawn my attention to a roof alteration in [address] which they consider to be similar in design. However, the style of building in that case is different to the appeal property, and the street context is not comparable to [address]. Consequently, the existence of this development, which is some distance from the appeal site in any event, does not persuade me that the appeal scheme is acceptable.

At my site visit, I observed that there are several varieties of roof alterations or extensions in the area. I have not been provided the background to these cases. However, they are generally set back from the eaves to maintain the visible form of the original roof. The appellant has pointed out that there are several flat roof buildings nearby. However, these are flatted blocks designed to different architectural concepts. Where flat roof extensions or alterations are found in the area, they are usually subservient to the original roof structure and less prominent.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, this pair of semi-detached properties and the surrounding area. As such, it would conflict with Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (Adopted 2013). Taken together, these seek that development is designed to a high standard and is in keeping with the character of the area.

I acknowledge the benefits offered by providing better quality of internal and external space together with a dual aspect loft bedroom. Nevertheless, these benefits do not outweigh the harm that I have found.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, this appeal should be dismissed.