Appeal 3358621

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow which is one of 8 pairs of semi-detached houses along a stretch of [address] between the [name] and [address]. The bungalows share the same design which comprises hipped roofs with first floor accommodation in the roof space, and front and rear dormers set above the eaves and below the roof ridge which join with those of neighbouring houses. Ground floor rooms at the side of the front elevation, which project forward of the main houses, also have hipped roofs. The houses are set back from the road but are visible from it and their common design gives a pleasing uniformity and rhythm that contributes to the character and appearance of this section of [address].

The proposal is for a hip to gable roof extension and to extend the existing front and rear dormers across the new section of roof. The council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2021) (SPD) advises that gabling off an existing hipped roof will likely be refused planning permission where it would upset the symmetry on a pair of semi-detached houses. This would be the case with the proposed development with the gable roof being at odds with the hipped roof on the adjoining house, thus unbalancing the appearance of the pair. The front and rear roof dormer window extensions would appear elongated and out of scale with those of the adjoining house, accentuating the loss of balance and uniformity that currently exists and thus harming the character and appearance of the host building, its adjoining neighbour and the surrounding area. The proposed development would therefore conflict with Policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy (2013), Policies PSP1 and PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) and the SPD which only permits development of a high quality design that enhances local character and distinctiveness.

The appellant has provided several examples of extensions nearby, including side dormers and a hip to gable extension at No 339. Details have not been provided in terms of whether these developments were consented before or after the adoption of the SPD, or whether they were permitted development. Nonetheless, I note that the SPD encourages side dormers in preference to hip to gable roof extensions. In any case, I have come to my own view regarding the development rather than relying on the approach the Council may have taken elsewhere.

I have considered all other matters raised in support of the appeal, including that the proposed development would improve the appellant’s living accommodation and the absence of public representations. However, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.