Appeal 3356616

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed alterations to the roof on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property [site address] is a detached two-storey dwelling. It is located on small residential estate. The group of houses, of which number 11 is one, were constructed to a uniform design. The site is undulating, and the stepped siting of the houses reflects the topography of site. Although there have been a number of alterations and extensions to neighbouring houses, I did not observe that any of the roofs had been significantly altered.

The appellants propose a single storey front extension along with a conversion of the roof space.

The proposed single storey front extension is deminimus in scale and form and would not cause harm to the appearance of either the host property or the character of wider street scene.

In order to achieve the loft space conversion, the ridge height of the main roof would be raised by 0.5 metre or so and as the existing eaves line would be maintained the new roof would have a steeper pitch. The new pitch, in a small but significant way would be different to that of the roof to the porch and garage as well as the neighbouring dwellings. While acknowledging that due to the topography of the site the small increase in height would, in itself, not be as notable as if the houses were all built on a flat level site, the proposed alterations to the roof pitch would nevertheless make this house stand out from its neighbours.

The proposed large rear box dormer would extend virtually across the full width of the roof slope and would have a strong horizontal emphasis, wide cheeks and large windows that would be out of proportion with the existing first floor windows. While there would only be limited views of the dormer from the public realm it would when considered together with the alterations of the main roof result in a utilitarian, bulky and dominant addition to the host property.

I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that, given the uniform design and three-dimensional form of the neighbouring properties the proposed development would cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host building and thereby the established character and appearance of the street scene.

To allow the development would therefore be contrary to the objectives of Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan-Development Management Plan ([name] 2019) and the design guidance set out in section 5.6 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for [name] and Alterations ([name] 2004) as they relate, amongst other things, to the quality of design and the requirement for it to make a positive contribution to character and appearance of its surroundings.

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