Appeal 6001778

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 bungalow located on the north side of [address]. It forms one half of a matched pair with No. [address], both of which presently feature hipped roof forms and similar proportions. The pair reads as a coherent composition in the street scene and ties-in with the character of this part of [address]. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and comprises a mix of detached and semi-detached bungalows and chalet-style dwellings. Whilst there is variation in roof forms along the street, including some hip-to-gable alterations and dormer extensions, the semi-detached pairs remain legible features within the street scene.

The proposal would alter the existing hipped roof to a gable end and introduce two front dormers. Notwithstanding that the dormers would be set below the ridge, they would occupy a substantial proportion of the front roof slope and would be disproportionately large in relation to the roof plane and the fenestration below. In combination with the hip-to-gable alteration, the proposal would introduce a visually dominant and top-heavy roof form to the appeal dwelling. The cumulative scale and prominence of the roof additions would erode the visual coherence of the semi-detached pair and would result in the appeal property appearing unduly dominant when viewed from the public realm.

I acknowledge that the appellant has sought to respond to the previous refusal by amending the scheme, including by subdividing the previously proposed single front dormer into two elements and aligning the dormer windows with those below. I have also had regard to the presence of hip-to-gable alterations to some semi-detached bungalows along [address]. However, those examples do not replicate the cumulative bulk and prominence of the appeal proposal, which combines a hip-to-gable alteration with two sizeable front dormers on one half of an otherwise coherent pair. The converted gabled bungalows on [address] are mostly characterised by front rooflights rather than dormers, giving them a subdued profile in the streetscene. As such, they do not provide a compelling justification for the degree of roof alteration proposed in this case.

The appellant contends that the existing pair lacks balance because the neighbouring property’s roof extends over a garage. However, when viewed from the street, Nos. 12 and 14 nonetheless retain a broadly consistent roof profile and read as a balanced composition. The proposed alterations would accentuate, rather than remedy, any perceived imbalance. I am also not persuaded that the proposal would create a visually balanced addition or visual interest in the street scene. Rather, the scale and massing of the dormers, taken together with the hip-to-gable alteration, would result in a bulky and visually dominant roofscape that would appear at odds with the proportions of the host dwelling and the relationship of the pair.

The appellant also refers to other developments in the wider area as examples of similar roof alterations and instances of “imbalance” and “disproportion”. However, several of those examples appear to comprise large, bulky or full-width front dormers. Such developments do not constitute good design, nor do they provide a persuasive benchmark for what would be acceptable in this case. Moreover, I have limited information about the planning circumstances in which those developments were permitted, including the policies in force at the time and the specific design details assessed. In any event, each proposal must be assessed on its own merits and in its own context. The existence of development elsewhere in the wider area, particularly where it appears visually bulky or poorly proportioned, does not justify the introduction of further harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the street scene in this instance.

For these reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and surrounding area. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policy EC2 of the Council’s adopted Local Plan which seeks to ensure proposals are well-designed and appropriate to their settings. It would also conflict with Policies RDG7 and RDG8 of the ‘Residential Design Guidance’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) insofar as they seek to ensure that the design of all development results in well proportioned and balanced properties, and that roof alterations are not top heavy, dominant or result in the detrimental loss of symmetry to a pair of dwellings.

The proposal would provide additional accommodation for the current occupiers. Whilst this would improve living conditions, it would not outweigh the permanent harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the surrounding 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.