Appeal 3362482

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a relatively modern two-storey detached dwelling situated in a residential area, characterised by its shallow pitch roofed and similarly designed, two-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings which, by virtue of limited visible alterations and uniformed height and width, lend a pleasant cohesive appearance and rhythm to the street which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The altered roof would be clearly visible within the street scene, and although there appears to be some distance between the appeal property and neighbours Number 52 Medway on plan, there is a curvature of the street at this point which results in the two properties appearing closer. Nonetheless, the proposed alterations would not only enlarge the roof but despite the development’s description also introduce a noticeably steeper pitch unreflective of the original building. Resulting in a taller form of development, exceeding the heights of all immediate dwellings. Due to the limited spacing between plots, the resulting building would be obviously dominant and an incongruous feature considerably at odds with the surrounding area. This would detrimentally affect the quality of the area’s consistency.

Although reliant on changes to the current roof height, the rear dormer would not be of an unattractive design in isolation. It would be well contained within the roof slope and a clearly subservient addition. It would not be aligned with the corresponding windows on the lower floors, but this is a consistent feature of the building’s fenestration in any event.

This would not however make the scheme acceptable for the other reasons I have set out. The harm caused to the character and appearance of the area would lead to conflict with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) and guidance contained in SPD4: A Guide for [address] Extensions & Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development respects and acknowledges the identity of the locality and character and scale of the original property through good design, having regard to massing, scale, proportion and materials used and roofs completed to complement the street scene.

The appellant’s contention that there may be a fallback position courtesy of the permitted development regime appears to relate to the proposed dormer only. I have found no harm in this regard as an individual feature, in isolation. The appellant agrees that the roof lift would not be permittable, and I have no reason to disagree. My findings therefore stand.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.