Appeal 3368468

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area around [address].

No 4 is a detached bungalow situated on the north side of [address], close to its junction with [address]. It has a low profile and a gable frontage. The proposed development would entail the raising of the eaves by some 0.8 metres; the raising of the roof by around 1.5 metres; the construction of a small dormer window in each of the roof slopes; and the construction of a porch to the side elevation to serve the existing main entrance to the bungalow. There would be a new triangular window inserted into each of the extended gable ends of the bungalow. These windows, along with the dormers, would serve additional accommodation formed in the roof space.

Policy CP10 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy (CS) indicates that new development should respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality, in terms of the materials, siting, size, scale and details used. Also, it should be integrated effectively with its surroundings.

[address] Extensions Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) indicates that the potential implications of roof extensions or alterations on the built environment must be considered carefully, especially if the proposal is likely to introduce a new building feature to a local area. Moreover, proposals for altering the eaves or the ridge of the roof should be treated with caution as such a transformation could have a significant effect on the character of a street scene, especially where there is a clear consistent roof line or distinctive roof form for a group of houses.

Nos 4, 6 and [address] have identical front gables and present a uniform frontage to this part of the road. No 2 is set at 90 degrees to the adjacent appeal property, but is connected to No [address] on the corner plot, and No 27 also has an identical front gable. Further west, Nos 11 and [address], occupy similar corner plots at the junction with [address], and are similarly joined to Nos [address] and No [address] respectively. No [address] and No [address] have identical front gables to those at the appeal property, such that there is significant uniformity to the view along the north side of [address] from [address]. [address] turns to the north, the bungalows give way to two-storey houses, while [address] and the rest of the dwellings on [address] are also two-storey.

The Council contends that the increase in the eaves and ridge heights of the appeal property, together with the introduction of dormers and triangular shaped window to the front of the property would introduce new design features, which would disrupt the height, scale and existing pattern of development created by the general appearance of the properties on this side of [address]. I concur with this view. The proposed development would represent an incongruous feature in what would otherwise be a consistent appearance to the bungalows around No 4, including those on the corner plots at the junction with [address] which become a complementary feature as the road bends past No 8.

The appellant makes note of the fact that No [address], which is situated on the corner plot at the junction with [address], is a two-storey house which replaced a bungalow at some point in the past. I have few details of this but, in any case, it relates in terms of scale and context to the rest of the two-storey houses along [address]. Similarly, beyond No [address], the road is characterised by two-storey houses on both sides and No 15 responds to this context.

The appellant has also provided examples of bungalows that have been extended in the surrounding area. I acknowledge that the adjacent No 2 has a new porch under construction, but this does not disrupt the prevailing eaves and roof line of the street scene on this side of the [address]. Other examples are from different streets in the area and have a different context. I have few details of these, and some are of a design that I do not consider should be replicated in the interests of protecting the visual amenities of the surrounding area. In any case, I have considered this proposal on its own merits.

In conclusion, I find that the proposed extensions and alterations at No 4 would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area around this part of [address], which is currently characterised by a degree of uniformity of height and design. On this basis it would conflict with Policy CP10 of the CS, and with guidance in the SPD. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal.