Appeal 6002517

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal concerns a detached, two storey dwelling located in a wider than average plot on the northern side of the [address]. The dwelling appears to be from the early Victorian era, with a shallow hipped tiled roof with prominent chimneys on either side. It has been significantly extended to the rear by way of a part single / part two storey extension which incorporates two projecting hipped roof elements with a flat roof valley in the centre.

The surrounding area is mixed in character and appearance, comprising Victorian properties and more recent infill development. As a result, a variety of roof forms are displayed in the immediate area.

The proposal is to replace the roof of the dwelling with a new roof which would be about 0.9m metre higher than the existing roof and would incorporate half hips. The new roof would not extend across the full depth of the existing two storey rear extension, exposing a large flat roof area to the rear. The new roof would incorporate 5no. rooflights on the front elevation and a large dormer would be constructed on the rear roof slope.

The proposed new roof form would add considerable bulk and mass to the main roof and would fundamentally alter the character and appearance of the host dwelling by removing its characteristic shallow, hipped roof and detracting from the prominence of its chimneys. Whilst the resultant height of the appeal property would be within that displayed by other dwellings in the immediate area, the new roof, with its relatively steep half hips would appear overly bulky and disproportionate in scale to the traditional form of the host dwelling. Furthermore, the proposed front rooflights would also be disproportionately large and their regular spacing, which bears little regard to the positioning of the window openings on the floor below, would appear overly regimented and would further emphasise the inappropriate form and appearance of the new roof structure.

I acknowledge that the adjacent semi-detached houses at Nos 59 and [address] are higher than the appeal property and also incorporate half hips, with the Council advising that these alterations probably took place in around 1968. Notwithstanding this, these dwellings are not directly comparable to the appeal property as they are of a different original scale, design and appearance, with a higher original eaves height and consequently, the alterations that have taken place have not significantly overwhelmed the original design and appearance of the dwellings. Accordingly, the alterations that have historically been carried out to Nos. 59 and 61 do not justify the proposed development at No 63. Moreover, the majority of the traditional Victorian detached and semi-detached houses along the [address] have retained their original hipped or dual pitched roof form.

The removal of the hipped roof over the existing rear extension and the resultant extensive two storey flat roof area to the rear would also be at odds with the traditional roof form and original character and appearance of the dwelling. The dwelling is well set back from the [address] in line with neighbouring dwellings, however the rear two storey flat roof would be visible in views when approaching along the [address], particularly from the west where the incongruent change to the existing roof form would be highly apparent and detrimental to the character and appearance of the wider area.

The proposed rear dormer would be set down from the ridge of the replacement roof and also set in from the side elevations. It would, however, extend down to the eaves height of the dwelling, meeting the flat roof of the rear projection beyond. The dormer would be of considerable width and would cover a significant proportion of the rear roof creating a dominant feature as a result of its size and bulky, box-like appearance. Its overall dominance would be further accentuated by the large pair of double doors and large central window. It would therefore fail to accord with the advice contained in the Council’s Design Supplementary Planning Document (2015) (SPD) which supports the installation of traditional dormer windows if they are a subordinate feature of the roofscape and are in keeping with the character of the dwelling and the street scene.

I note the appellants comment that the flat roof dormer and the revealed flat roof over the existing two storey extension would create a unified appearance to the rear elevation of the dwelling. However, the various elements of the proposal would combine to result in a form of development that fails to respect the existing character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to Policies CS21 and CS24 of the [name] (2012) which amongst other matters, require development to respect and make a positive contribution to the street scene and character of the area, paying regard to the characteristics of adjoining buildings and townscape character. There would also be conflict with the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which promote high quality design.

I acknowledge that the proposal would provide enhanced living accommodation for the appellant and his family however this consideration does not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.