Appeal 6000124

The appeal site is located on the lower slopes of one of the long valleys that surround the centrally located Commons plateau. Together with the woodland areas, predominantly large, detached dwellings set in generous plots and interspersed with substantial mature trees, this topography contributes to the significance of the CCA, insofar as it relates to the appeal site.

Although of a more moderate scale than other properties in the wider CCA, the spatial relationship of the appeal property and its linked detached neighbour (No.6), sited away from and at a lower level than the road, contributes positively to the spacious character of the CCA. Substantial mature trees to the side and rear of the linked pair frame the built form whilst connecting to larger pockets of wooded areas, adding to the sylvan character of the area.

The proposed introduction of additional pitched roofs, dormer window and porch would overwhelm the property’s existing crown roof and pitched front projection. The roof alterations, combined with the overall bulk of the proposal, would consume the simplicity of the existing dwelling, resulting in an oversized form that, given the elevated position of the road, would be a highly visible, incongruous addition to the host property and within the wider street scene.

The proposal would also add significant bulk to the front of the existing property, siting the façade closer to the road, thereby unbalancing the relationship to its linked neighbour and encroaching into the spacious setting of the road. [name].6 has been enlarged, it has been extended to the side with a continuation of the ridge and eaves heights of the roofscapes ensuring the addition is both subservient and sympathetic to its host.

Despite the existing two-storey flat roofed extension’s lack of positive contribution to the host property or the CCA as a whole, it is setback from the main front building line and, along with the angled relationship of the dwelling to the road is subservient to its host.

The existing dwelling has a small overhang at first floor level on the double height front projection, where the external materials change from brick to hung tiles. The introduction of a deeper overhang on the front extension would, therefore, be a discordant detail in the façade, even if it would not be readily visible from the road and facilitates easier access around the host property. Although other dwellings nearby have an overhang feature, these are of a depth which is consistent across their respective elevations.

Whilst extensions and alterations to [address] have recently been approved, this property is not linked and of a larger scale than the appeal dwelling. The recently approved demolition of the adjacent [address] and the erection of a new building would provide a net gain in dwellings with a larger number of units than existing. Therefore, these projects are materially different to the appeal scheme. Moreover, they do not justify the grant of planning permission for development that would harm the character or appearance of a designated

The proposal would not preserve the character or appearance of the CCA, resulting in less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset on the basis that it would harm only part of its significance. I attach great weight to the desirability of avoiding such a harmful effect.

Although some social, economic and environmental benefits would arise from the proposal, these would primarily be for the benefit of the appellant. There would be some public benefit from the enhancement of the host dwelling and therefore the CCA, as a result of the replacement of the existing extension’s flat roof. I give this a small amount of weight in my decision. However, this does not outweigh the great weight given to the harm to the CCA.

Any informal opinion given within pre-application advice is not binding on the Council. Nevertheless, the appeal scheme comprises roof forms and detailing that would result in a significantly different appearance of the host property when compared with the pre-application scheme.

In accordance with my statutory duty1 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area, I conclude that the proposal would not preserve the character and appearance of the CCA. It would also conflict with the policies cited in the decision notice.

The development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh this conflict. For the reasons identified above and having had regard to all relevant matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed.