Appeal 6003120

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area; and, • The effect of the development on protected species.

The appeal property is a modest hipped-roof bungalow located on the northern side of [address], within a street dominated by properties of similar scale and appearance. The distinctive character of the street scene is derived from the spacious layout, low hipped-roof lines of properties and mature landscaping giving the area a pleasant, verdant feel.

The proposal would replace the main hipped roof of the existing bungalow with a taller, gabled roof incorporating three rooflights to the front and a flat roofed box dormer to the rear. The smaller hipped roof to the front projection would be retained. The enlargement of the roof, and in particular, the introduction of a gabled design, would be at odds with the prevailing hipped roof roofscape. The resultant roof would be taller, bulkier and a more dominant feature, unbalancing the appearance of the existing property and being substantially more dominant in the street scene than the existing. By introducing a larger gabled roof within the established predominant pattern of low hipped roofs, the proposal would detract from the pleasant uniformity of existing bungalows and be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene as a consequence. The property is clearly visible in views along the street from the south-east and forms the end of the vista from that direction. This degree of prominence adds additional weight to my concerns.

It is evident that the neighbouring property at no 11a has been extensively enlarged by a significant upwards extension. This is the only such extension in the area and the property appears very much as an outlier in the context of the strong local character as a consequence. I do not know the full circumstances of that case, but in any event, the extension to no 11a serves to confirm that significant, unsympathetic changes to the roofscape of properties causes harm to the over-riding character of the street scene. I do not consider therefore, that the extension at no 11a should justify the further erosion of that character that would arise from

The proposed rear dormer extension would extend across the majority of the enlarged roof and be set in only marginally from the sides and ridgeline of the proposed gabled roof. Policy H18 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (1997) (the LP) requires that dormer windows are designed to respect the scale, proportions and external appearance of the roof and elevation, and confirms that any dormer window which is flat roofed and excessively large in terms of its width and/or height, will be refused. Similar guidance is provided in the council’s [name] and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Given the design of the proposed dormer described above, it would conflict with Policy H18 and the guidance of the SPD.

In mitigation, the proposed dormer extension would not be readily visible in any public views from the street and the tall trees surrounding the rear garden would prevent views of it from the adjacent roads to the north. Regardless, the dormer extension relies on the provision of the proposed enlarged roof and the proposal must be considered as a whole.

Taking all of the above into account, the proposed extensions would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policy CS20 of the [name] for Chiltern District (2011) (the CS), and Policies H15, H18, GC1 of the LP that require development to provide for high standards of design which reflects their surroundings. Further, they require that house extensions do not increase the height of the building, respect the scale and proportions of the host property, and protect the character of the street scene.

The Council considers that there is potential for bats to be present within the roof of the property and finds the proposals unacceptable in the absence of assessments to confirm the presence, or otherwise, of a bat roost and, should one exist, the likely harm caused to it by the development.

Circular 06/2005: “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” states that bearing in mind the delay and cost that may be involved, developers should not be required to undertake surveys for protected species unless there is a reasonable likelihood of the species being present and affected by the development. However, I have nothing in the evidence before me, including the comments of the Council’s Ecologist, that justifies an assessment being undertaken. The Council’s delegated report does not provide any reasoning to substantiate why it considers there is a reasonable likelihood of bats being present. It does not, for example, point to the results of any building inspection showing potential for bat access points or provide evidence of local sightings of bats.

I am not satisfied therefore, that there is sufficient justification to require a [name] or Preliminary Roost Assessment in this case. Accordingly, on the evidence before me, I find that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on protected species.

The appellant suggests that the property could be extended without the need for planning permission. However, it has not been shown that any such extension would be of a comparable design, scale and massing as the proposal which is the subject of this appeal. In any case, I must determine the appeal on the basis of the proposal before me.

For the reasons given above, the proposal does not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations that indicate I should take a decision other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.