Appeal 6000973

The appeal is dismissed.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

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

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling occupying a prominent corner plot within an established residential area. The prevailing character of this part of the street is defined by relatively simple two-storey dwellings with coherent roof forms, modest proportions and a clear visual hierarchy between the main building and any additions.

The detailed roof composition shown on the proposed elevation plans would result in an awkward and visually discordant roofscape. It would incorporate a combination of a small pitched element, an indented section close to the side boundary, a projecting element to the front, as well as a flat-roofed component on the ridge. This fragmented arrangement would appear contrived and overly complex when read against the simple, consistent roof forms of the host dwelling and neighbouring properties. Rather than appearing as a coherent addition, the proposal would read as an incongruous assemblage of roof forms that would detract from the overall visual unity of the dwelling when seen from the street.

The appellant suggests that the recessed and projecting elements of the proposed front elevation would reflect and echo the articulation found within the street and would create visual interest. However, the particular combination of indented and projecting roof forms in this case, together with the flat-roofed element, would not successfully reflect the simple and coherent articulation of neighbouring frontages. The inclusion of a flat roof ridge would further undermine the coherence of the roofscape. In the context of a street characterised by traditional pitched roofs, the flat-roofed component would appear visually at odds with the established built form and would contribute to an awkward transition between roof elements, exacerbating the disjointed appearance of the extension.

In addition, the proposed ridge height of the extension would be excessive in relation to the existing dwelling. The increase in height, when combined with the width of the side extension, would result in a form of development that would appear overly bulky and dominant. The extension would thus fail to read as clearly subservient to the host dwelling.

The appellant also contends that the single-storey side extension, which has not been built, would detract from the architectural harmony of the street scene and that the proposed first-floor extension would address this anomaly. However, the scale and roof form of the proposed extension would not represent a sensitive or proportionate response to the host dwelling. Rather it would introduce a more visually assertive and bulky addition that would materially alter the proportions and form of the dwelling to the detriment of its appearance.

Furthermore, the proposed fenestration would introduce excessively large areas of glazing, with window proportions that would appear visually dominant and uncharacteristic of the host dwelling and the surrounding context. They would draw undue visual attention to the extension and would reinforce its incongruous and visually assertive appearance on what is a prominent corner location.

Taken together, the awkward and fragmented roof form, the excessive ridge height, the overall scale, and the disproportionate areas of glazing would result in a bulky and visually discordant addition. The proposal would fail to respect the scale, proportions and simple architectural language of the host dwelling and would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies CSTP22, CSTP23 and PMD2 of the [name] and Policies for the Management of Development (2015) as well as the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) insofar as they seek to ensure proposals are well-designed, respect surrounding context and contribute to the character of the area.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.