Appeal 6000666

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for enlargement of existing roof dormer and hip to gable roof extension at [site address] , Warwickshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref W24/1711, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2408.01; 2408.06 [name]; 2408.07 [name].

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on approved plans: 2408.06 [name]; 2408.07 [name].

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out on page 12 of the Phase 1 & 2 Bat & [name] carried out by Ridgeway Ecology Ltd dated 4th June 2025 except in respect of the provision of bat boxes.

No development shall take place including demolition until a scheme for the provision of two bat boxes or bat roosting features to be erected on or incorporated into buildings within the site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include box type, location, and installation timescale. Thereafter, the bat boxes or bat roosting features shall be installed and maintained in perpetuity.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.

[address] comprises a mixture of detached and semi-detached, 2-storey houses on moderate to large plots, which vary in their forms, features and styles. The houses are set back from the highway, which provides a sense of spaciousness. The frontages of the houses tend to be landscaped, and include some larger trees, which adds verdancy to the street-scene.

On the side of [address] where the appeal property is located there is a run of semi-detached houses, which have a similar form, features and style. However, these houses have been extended in a variety of ways, which means their overall appearance differs to a moderate degree.

Most of the houses in this group have hipped roof profiles, and hipped roofs are also a characteristic of many of the other houses along [address]. Nonetheless, I saw on my visit that there are houses in the area immediate to the appeal property with other roof forms, for example, the houses opposite that have traditional pitched and gable end roof profiles. Also, a few of the houses within the group of similar houses have had rear roof extensions that disrupt their hipped appearance. This includes two houses that have altered their hipped roofs to gable ends, one being the appeal properties unattached neighbour.

Overall, there are a variety of roof forms in the street-scene, including rear horizontal box dormers. While the prevailing roof profile may be hipped, in the context of the variety of built form along [address] and the differences between the run of similar houses, none of the other roof forms appear incongruous or as obtrusive additions. The effect of the proposal would be comparable.

The proposed rear box dormer would not comply with all the guidance set out in the Council’s Residential Design Guide (2018) (SPD). However, it would be positioned to maintain a gap between it and the eaves line and the edge of the roof. It would be replacing an existing horizontal box dormer, and, although the proposed dormer would be significantly wider, for these reasons and those set out above, it would not damage the character and appearance of the host dwelling or general area, thereby meeting the overarching aims of the SPD.

The hipped to gable roof conversion would unbalance the semi-detached pair that the appeal property forms part of, and it may be that in isolation this would cause some harm. Nonetheless, notwithstanding the other hipped to gable end conversions, many of the similar semi-detached pairs differ in their appearance, with these differences unbalancing the pairs to various degrees. This would limit the overall effect of the proposal in this regard.

This effect would be further reduced by the tree and other vegetation that forms part of the front boundary treatment of the houses, which restricts views of the pair as a whole. Given the area is characterised by this type of frontage planting, in my view such features are highly likely to remain in a similar form for aesthetics, privacy and consistency with local character.

In conclusion, despite the loss of the hipped roof and increased width of the horizontal box dormer, the proposal would be in keeping with the variety of built form and roof profiles along [address]. It would not result in any harm to the spacious and verdant character of the area and would not appear as an incongruous or obtrusive addition.

Accordingly, while the proposal may not fully comply with the SPD, it would meet its overarching aims and would accord with Policy BE1 of the Warwick District Local Plan (2017) and Policy KP13 of the Kenilworth Town Neighbourhood Plan (2018). These policies seek to ensure that development proposals respond and contribute positively to the character and quality of the environment through good layout and design by, among other things, respecting the scale, height, form and massing of their surroundings.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition specifying the approved plans is required in the interests of certainty. For the same reasons and in order to protect the character and appearance of the area, a condition is necessary to ensure the materials used on the external surfaces are those shown on the approved plans.

To protect biodiversity, a condition is necessary to require the development to be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the Phase 1 & 2 Bat & [name]. For the same reason a condition is also required to ensure a scheme for the provision of two bat boxes or bat roosting features is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition must be pre-commencement to ensure there is no net loss of occupied or unoccupied roost sites. It has been agreed by the appellant.

I have remove the requirement for the development to accord with the provision of bat boxes recommendation set out in the Phase 1 & 2 Bat & [name]. This would be covered by the scheme for the provision of two bat boxes or bat roosting features and would allow flexibility as to where the bat boxes or bat roosting features are located.

For the reasons above, I find that the proposal would accord with the development plan, read as a whole. Having had regard to all relevant material considerations, it has not been demonstrated that there are any of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore allowed, subject to the conditions set out above.