Appeal 6001764

The appeal is dismissed.

The alterations to the roof have been constructed with the internal fitting out and finishing to be completed. This is therefore a retrospective proposal, and I have considered it as such.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: 1) the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area, and 2) the living conditions of the neighbouring properties in [address] with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal property is one half of a semi-detached house, which is different in design and scale to the predominantly Victorian terraced and semi-detached properties of the same form along [address] to the west and opposite the appeal property. To the other side is a taller detached building with dormer windows.

The alterations increase the height of the ridgeline and create a substantial boxy structure to the rear at roof level. The addition protrudes significantly beyond the original roofscape and extends over part of the two-storey rear extension. This adds significant bulk and results in the appearance of a three-storey building from the rear.

The overall height is lower than the neighbouring properties, but it is out of alignment and balance with the other half of the semi-detached building. While there is an intervening chimney stack, it does not provide separation, and the development creates an incongruous roof form that is both out of keeping with the host property and visually intrusive in the street scene. There are other roof alterations and the presence of dormer windows in the locality, but from my observations, these sit within the roofscape. Whereas the proposal changes the overall shape of the roof, contrary to the guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document - [name] (SPD).

The appellant refers to a lawful development certificate (LDC) for roof alterations, including a dormer window with Juliet balconies and advises that scheme would not have achieved sufficient headroom for the stairs. Those plans are not before me, and what constitutes permitted development is a separate matter. I do, however, agree with the Council that due to the increased height of the current development, the LDC does not form a fallback.

[name] understand the appellant’s desire for increased accommodation, the property does benefit from previous extensions, which, in conjunction with the substantial roof alterations, result in disproportionate additions and a top-heavy form.

Overall, I find that the height, massing and design of the development fails to integrate with the host property and is obtrusive to the street scene. As such, the proposal is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and is contrary to saved policies SDP7 and SDP9 of the [site address] Local Plan Review (as amended 2015) (LPR), policy CS13 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (as amended 2015) (CS), and the SPD. Together, these promote good design, which responds positively and integrates with its local surroundings, respects the scale and proportions of existing buildings and architectural detailing.

The appeal property backs onto [address], which is a crescent of semi-detached properties set around at differing angles. No. 40a has limited open garden space due to the extensions and outbuilding. There is a row of large conifer trees along the rear boundary, although these are within the neighbour's garden (No.3).

Due to the layout, No.40a and No.[address] are not directly aligned back-to-back, and the roof addition is set back compared to the existing two-storey element. Therefore, while the separation distance is slightly below the guidance in the Council’s SPD for a back-to-back separation between windows of 3-storey and 2-storey buildings, I do not consider that the roof addition would result in a material increase in overlooking that would cause a harmful loss of privacy.

The alterations do, however, result in a taller and more imposing building and No.40a is set further back than its neighbours. The separation is such that it would not result in significant overshadowing or an overbearing impact on the neighbours in [address]. It would, nonetheless, due to the elevated position of the addition, be seen from the various neighbouring gardens. The incongruent form would have a visually intrusive presence, which contributes to my finding that the development would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

I therefore find that the proposal would not conflict with policy SPD1 with regard to unacceptably affecting the health, safety and amenity of the city and its citizens. I have, however, as set out above, found conflict with CS policy CS13 in relation to the design of the development.

For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.