Appeal 6001858

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has stated that they would agree to changing the tile-hung finish of the proposed extension to a rendered finish to match that of the lower sections of the elevations and that this could be agreed by condition. However, an appeal should not be used to amend or evolve a scheme. In the interest of fairness, I am considering the plans before me, as submitted to and considered by the Council.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area.

The appeal site is situated within a residential cul-de-sac of predominantly semi-detached housing. There are a variety of house designs, with different roof forms and massing. Whilst full hipped roofs predominate, some houses have half hipped roofs and it is noted that front roof slopes are further differentiated by a mix of hipped, gabled and cat-slide feature roofs.

The appeal development seeks to extend the ridge of the house sideways, to replace the hipped roof with a flank gable, along with the introduction of a full width rear roof extension. This would have a flat roof and extend from the eaves level up to the ridge. A single vertical plane of continuous tile hung cladding would unify the new created gable and rear roof extension. The proposed development would be highly visible from the street, in particular when viewed obliquely across the gap between the host property and [address]. The amalgamation of the side gable and rear extension, with no setback, would be uncharacteristic of the street’s established roof forms and unsympathetic to the host property. The proposed flat roof of the rear wing would further accentuate the abrupt form of the roof extension.

In making my decision, I have had regard to the Council’s Residential Design Guide. It requires rear roof extensions or dormer windows not to dominate the entirety of that roof slope by ensuring an appropriate inset. Although the appellant disputes that a dormer extension is proposed, and I acknowledge that the proposed development would contain some features that would match the host building, including windows and materials, this would not overcome the harm I have identified in respect of its form.

On my site visit, and as highlighted by the appellant, I saw that a number of houses have roof alterations that have changed their profile and symmetry when viewed from the street. A number of these changes include hipped side dormers. However, the design and scale of these is such that generally respect the characteristic steep roof forms of the street. [address] has a full side gable extension with a set-in rear flat roof extension, the design of which allows for a clear distinction between the new gable and the rear flat roofed extension in both form and materiality. This is in marked contrast with the appeal proposal. Ultimately, the existence of those other alterations has not led me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area. As such it conflicts with Policies QD6.2 and QD6.4 of the Watford Local Plan (2021-2038) which requires, amongst other matters, for development to relate to local context and enhance character and identity.

Reference has been made to the [name] of Area Study (2011). However, this document is not before me. Accordingly, I have not taken it into consideration in making my decision.

A previous approval for an unbuilt side extension at the appeal site has been brought to my attention. [name] have only limited information before me in respect of that scheme, it is evident that it did not relate solely to a roof extension. The issue in dispute over the roof extension before me is therefore different to that of a side extension. This weighs neither for nor against the appeal scheme.

I understand the wishes of the appellant to make home working easier and more comfortable, which they see as a modern requirement in housing. However, I do not consider that additional living accommodation in the roof space provide sufficient justification to outweigh the harm I have identified from the proposals.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan as a whole and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.