Appeal 6003706

The appeal is dismissed.

I note that the development has already been carried out. The extensions and roof light appear to have been constructed as shown on the plans before me, but for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a detached house, lying on a corner within a modern housing estate. Two storey houses with pitched tiled roofs predominate, many of which have pitched roof dormers including ones on the appeal property approved by the Council in 20231. Some nearby houses have side conservatory additions, but road facing frontages largely remain unaltered, featuring original lean-to porches, doorway canopies and projecting bay windows which give the area a coherent architectural character.

The Council’s Residential Alterations and [name] 2017 (SPD) does not preclude different forms of extensions, but it states that these should respect the character of the original dwelling. Whilst it is not prescriptive, the SPD indicates that extensions should have a form and scale appropriate to the original dwelling and the surrounding development pattern, amongst other things.

There is no dispute that the proposed front roof light is acceptable. The proposal also includes a flat roof single storey front extension projecting around 3.6m 1 Planning application ref 23/00596/HHA forward of the existing porch, a side roof canopy and a rear infill extension. It is indicated that this makes efficient use of the site to improve the quality of the accommodation for the occupiers. However, due to its roof form, size and position forward of the dwelling, the front projection appears as a boxy, incongruous addition which fails to reflect the architectural features in the area. This is evident in views from [address].

The canopy has a modest depth and is intended to serve a functional purpose. It includes a flat roof adjoining the front projection, a lean-to red metal roof to the side which becomes a pitched roof extending round to the rear and adjoining the neighbouring garage. The colour and material of the lean-to and pitched roof elements visually jar with the tiled roofs on the original building and adjacent garage, though the appellant indicates that a suitably worded condition could address the issue of finishing materials.

The extensions and canopy are well below the eaves and ridge height of the existing house. Nevertheless, due to the multiple roof forms, the appeal scheme fails to reflect the style of the original building and appears incoherent and discordant in the street scene.

The appellant considers that the proposed extensions would have been permitted development in the absence of the article 4 direction2, but there is limited evidence to substantiate this. In any event, there is no dispute that the proposal requires planning permission and I have considered it accordingly.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development harms the character and appearance of the area. This is contrary to Policies CSTP22, CSTP23, PMD1 and PMD2 of the Council’s Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development (as amended) 2015. Together, these seek to protect character and achieve high quality design, with proposals required to positively respond to local context and not unacceptably affect the amenity of the area, amongst other things.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including parking, neighbouring living conditions and impacts on heritage assets. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm is a neutral matter which does not carry weight in favour of the scheme.

There are no objections to the proposal from neighbouring residents, but this does not alter my conclusion on the main issue.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.