Appeal 3360904

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the roof extensions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the [address] street scene.

The appeal scheme seeks to provide increased living space within the roof through a combination of a rear dormer and a side hip to gable extension. In respect of the proposed dormer the Council argues that this would be excessively wide for the existing roof plane and have a boxed appearance.

However the dormer would be slightly lower than the ridge and significantly set up from the eaves. The windows would be of a matching design to those of the existing rear and appropriately spaced to break up the dormer face. Furthermore, the roof of No. 5 next door has a similarly sized dormer and the roof addition cannot be seen from the street scene or any other part of the public realm.

The Officer’s Report points out that the dormers at No. 5 and indeed those at No. 9 (with pitched roofs) were assessed under a different development plan and prior to the adoption of the [name] (‘the SPD’). Nonetheless, they are now part and parcel of the rearward context for the appeal scheme and in my view carry significant weight in the appraisal of those now proposed at No. 7. On balance I consider the dormer to be acceptable, notwithstanding an element of conflict with the Council’s SPD.

Turning to the proposed hip to gable, I acknowledge that this is needed to combine with the dormer to achieve the required additional living space in the roof. However, the continuation of the ridge and the gable end would result in a significant alteration to the roof form. This would both unbalance the dwelling given the hipped roof on the other side and reduce the openness between it and No. 9, especially as both houses are already tight to the shared boundary.

The grounds of appeal are only able to refer to one hip to gable extension in [address], at No. 56, which suggests that they are otherwise absent from [address]. That extension is seen from the road as being next to the hipped roof of a neighbouring property, as would be the case here. And in my view it serves only to demonstrate the harm caused to the character and appearance of the original property and its disruptive effect to the street scene. The other examples shown are similarly obtrusive and I consider that hip to gable additions are only normally acceptable when they create balance as opposed to imbalance or at a corner where they may signal a turning point and a change to the character and appearance of the locality. And even in those circumstances they require careful scrutiny.

Overall, and notwithstanding my acceptance of the proposed dormer, I consider that the proposal would be in harmful conflict with Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2018; Policy EG3 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2016; Principle DG52 of the SPD and with Government policy in paragraph 135 a), b) & c) of the National Planning Policy Framework December 2024.

The appeal therefore fails.