Appeal 6002875

The appeal is dismissed.

There is no dispute between the parties about the acceptability of the following elements of the scheme i) install solar (PV) panels to front and rear; ii) increase height of rear extension to accommodate heat recovery ventilation; iii) hot water tank; iv) external wall insulation at rear with heat pump and v) upgrade windows and doors. Based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that these aspects of the appeal proposal would not cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area, and I have not been made aware that these elements would result in any conflict with any development plan policies. Therefore, the focus of this appeal is the proposed increase in the ridge height of the roof.

In light of the above, the main issue is the effect of the proposed increase in the ridge height of the appeal property on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace situated in a residential area and is typical of the surrounding housing. The street is straight and therefore the ridge lines of the terraces are consistent within each terrace block. Although some stepped changes occur, these reflect the natural topography and form part of the original design of the street. The brickwork detailing at roof level provides a strong horizontal emphasis, and the relationship between the gutter line and this detailing is repeated uniformly along the terraces, contributing to the cohesive character of the area.

The proposed development would raise the height of the ridge by approximately 175 mm above the height of the existing terrace property at [site address] . This alteration would also result in a change to the relationship between the brickwork detail and the gutter line which is a defining characteristic of the terrace. As a result, the proposal would disrupt the established rhythm of the street as a whole and thus, result in an inappropriate and discordant appearance of the overall terrace.

The appellant highlights that the Council has not identified any particular view or heritage sensitivity that would be harmed by a 175 mm ridge increase. However, during my site visit I observed that the characteristics evident on [address], particularly the consistent relationship between the gutter line and the brickwork detailing extend across a wider area, including neighbouring streets. This uniformity contributes to the local character, and based on my assessment, the absence of a specific viewpoint does not alter the visual impact I have identified on the immediate terrace’s character and appearance.

The proposed increase in roof height may form part of a wider programme to improve the sustainability of the dwelling through enhanced insulation and low-carbon technologies. This benefit attracts some weight to the proposal. Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that the changes to the ridge height, as proposed, is the only means by which insulation improvements could be achieved and the benefit is not outweighed by the harm I have identified above.

For the reasons set out, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the wider area. Consequently, in this regard it would conflict with Policy H8 of the Liverpool Local Plan which requires development to respect the character of the existing dwelling and adjacent properties.

Comparisons have been made to other types of development which may involve an increase in the ridge height of a property. I do not have any details of these before me and therefore am unable to draw direct parallels with the appeal scheme. As such, I attribute limited weight to any comparison with any other form of development, and this does not lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issue set out above.

I have also considered an alternative permission at the property for some of the elements contained within the scheme before me, which does not involve an increase in the ridge height. This does not change my assessment or the harm I have identified, nor does it lead me to an alternative conclusion.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan and that the appeal should be dismissed.