Appeal 6000219

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of the proposal as set out in the Council's Decision Notice, which better identifies the development than that used in the application form. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced as a result.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The appeal site is a modern dwelling within an established residential area. It is located behind existing properties and so is relatively secluded. The proposal seeks to erect a rear extension. Also proposed are alterations to the roof on all sides of the property. These include enlarging the existing dormers, the joining-up of two front dormers, new dormers on the northern side of the property, and the expanding of existing roof hips into gables with smaller hips.

Policy LP1 of the Council’s Local Plan, adopted July 2018, requires development to have an acceptable scale, bulk and massing, and a high quality of design. It states that proposals should be assessed against published guidance, including the [name] and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted May 2015.

The SPD advises that the overall shape, size and position of rear and side extensions should not dominate the existing house, and should harmonise with its original appearance, or appear as an obvious addition. Roof extensions should also not dominate the original roof, and should be sensitive to its existing character. The conversion of existing hip roofs into gabled roofs is discouraged.

The proposed two-storey rear extension would add to an existing projection. However, it would not read as an obvious addition, instead appearing as part of a much larger extension. Its large size, scale and form would subsume much of the roofscape of the rear elevation, overwhelming it and overlapping some parts of a hip-to-gable extension. This awkward and excessive appearance would fail to reflect the roof form of the property, thereby conflicting with the SPD.

Individual elements of the other changes to the roofscape, viewed in isolation, may well be acceptable. That said, taken as a whole, they would involve extensive, visually complicated alterations to the roof. As such, the proposal would result in the roof having a cluttered, bulky, and incohesive appearance. Their mass and scale would dominate the original roof, thus failing to be sensitive to its character. As a result, the proposal would not represent the high quality of design sought by the Local Plan.

Given the fairly secluded location of the dwelling, the proposal would not be prominent in public views, although parts of it may well be seen from neighbouring properties. In any case, I am mindful that Local Plan policy LP1 requires all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality. Some of the properties in the surrounding area have a wide variety of designs and styles, including those cited by the appellant. However, few if any appeared to have designs directly comparable to the proposal, which I have considered on its own merits.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area, conflicting with Local Plan policy LP1 and the SPD. For the same reasons, it would conflict with the similar requirements of Policy 28 of the emerging Publication Local Plan.

Construction of the proposal would make a positive economic contribution locally, for instance to the building industry. It would make more efficient use of the site, and would improve the insulation and energy efficiency of the property. However, as a single dwelling, the public interest benefits of this would be modest, and so I give them only limited positive weight.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, and the weight I give to them, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.