Appeal 6002491

The appeal is dismissed

Whilst a first-floor rear extension similar to that proposed was under construction at the time of the site visit it is not evident what has been built is in accordance with the plans before me. Therefore, while I have had regard to the development that has taken place, I have considered the proposal with regard to the submitted plans and the merits of the scheme.

The main issue relevant to the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace, two-storey dwelling with an existing single-storey rear addition. The dwelling is constructed of red brick with a red tiled roof, matching the palette and form of the surrounding properties on this side of [address]. Owing to the tight pattern of development and the position of the rear elevations, these are largely screened from wider public viewpoints, including [address] itself. The consistent scale, materials, design and roof form of the terrace contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed first-floor extension would match the depth and width of the existing ground-floor addition and would sit below the ridge of the main roof. However, this does not in itself ensure that it integrates successfully with the host dwelling. The Gloucester City Council Home [name] (the Guide) states that flat roofs will not normally be permitted on two-storey extensions where they are visible from the street. The appeal proposal would generally not be visible from public vantage points nonetheless; the Guide reinforces the importance of roof form in maintaining the character of dwellings.

In this case, the host dwelling has a pitched roof, while the proposed first-floor extension incorporates a flat roof. Moreover, the flat roof would be higher than the eaves of the original property and joins the main roof slope above that level. This creates an awkward junction with the original roof. The large, visually undifferentiated horizontal element created by the flat roof is not characteristic of the appeal property and many of the terrace dwellings. It would appear imposing and visually dominant on the rear elevation, and out of keeping with the proportions and architectural style of the host dwelling and most of the terrace.

While the width and depth of the first-floor extension may not necessarily appear disproportionate, by virtue of its height and flat roof form, and the manner in which it attaches to the original roof structure, the extension would fail to assimilate satisfactorily with the existing dwelling. Although the fire-safety benefits of fibre-cement cladding are acknowledged, its use would further emphasise the extension’s incongruity, departing materially from the brick typically used in the terrace.

I acknowledge that the rear elevation is generally well screened from the public realm. Nonetheless, it is readily visible from neighbouring dwellings and their gardens. The fact that the harm would not necessarily be publicly experienced does not lessen its weight. These matters are not sufficient to permit development which has an adverse effect in design terms.

The appellant has indicated a willingness to accept a condition controlling the external finish of the extension. However, changing the surface treatment alone would not overcome the harm arising from the extension’s inappropriate scale, roof form and junction with the existing dwelling.

While the flat roof limits overall height compared with a pitched alternative, it has not been demonstrated that a pitched roof would result in greater harm. The Guide advises that pitched roofs are often more appropriate to the design of the original dwellings, and for the reasons given above, the proposed flat-roofed form would not be. It has not been robustly shown that flat-roofed two-storey rear extensions are typical of local terraces, and several existing two-storey rear extensions on [address] incorporate pitched roofs. A nearby two-storey rear addition extending across effectively the full width of its host dwelling on [address] demonstrates that such properties can accommodate pitched-roof forms. While overshadowing is cited as a potential concern, no substantive evidence has been provided to show that a pitched roof would have significantly harmful effects on neighbouring occupiers living conditions.

Reference has been made to flat-roofed two storey extensions to 57 and [address]. The Council advises that these developments were approved some considerable time ago and pre-date the adoption of the current development plan and introduction of the Guide. Moreover, when considering the terrace group only a small number of such extensions exist, and just one appears broadly comparable in scale and design to the appeal proposal. Even if the appeal scheme is smaller or less intrusive than these examples, their presence does not justify accepting any form of development irrespective of its design quality. By contrast, there were several two-storey rear extensions to dwellings on [address] that incorporate pitched roofs and materials that are sympathetic to the host dwellings. In any event, each proposal must be assessed on its own merits, and the existence of older examples, particularly those that would appear to conflict with the advice in the Guide, does not justify repeating a form of development that would cause harm in this instance.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would not comply with Policy SD4 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] and Policies A1, A9 and F1 of the Gloucester City Plan. These expect development, amongst other matters, to respond positively to, and respect the character, of the site and its surroundings.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.