Appeal 6004017

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

During the course of the application, the plans were amended to replace the originally proposed two storey side extension with a single storey one. The Council’s decision was based on these and I have therefore taken them into account in my recommendation on the appeal scheme.

The appellant highlights an error in the Council’s evidence referring to an increase in the roof ridge height. It is evident from the submitted plans that no such increase is proposed. A lean-to roof is also present at the side but is not shown on the existing plans. For clarity, I have taken the description of development from the application form, which does not refer to a ridge height increase and adequately describes the amended scheme. Notwithstanding this description of development, the plans and accompanying details clearly include a rear dormer. The Council assessed the proposal on this basis, and so shall I.

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

The appeal building is two storeys, with an existing single storey rear extension. It occupies a prominent corner plot that has an elevated position along [address]. The surrounding area is residential and features a mix of housing types. However, the appeal site forms part of a row of similarly designed semi-detached and hipped roof houses. The repetition of these building forms, with equal gaps and a consistent material palette, establishes a distinctive, cohesive rhythm and level of symmetry to this side of [address]. These dwellings have also been minimally extended, preserving their original form. As such, despite the surrounding architectural variety, this row retains a collective and original identity, which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed hip to gable roof extension would introduce additional bulk at this level and appear as an incongruous and discordant addition to the host dwelling. It would disrupt the symmetry and consistency of the semi-detached pairs and erode the predominance of the hipped roofs, which are distinctive to the row. Although gabled roofs are present nearby, these are generally of an original architecture or associated with terraces. The proposed rear dormer, although set down from the ridge and above the eaves, would also occupy almost the entire width of the roof slope. This would result in a boxy and disproportionately large appearance which would read as a notable projection within the original, unaltered rear roofscape of the row.

The proposed two storey rear extension would accord with the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2012, as it would not infringe upon the 45 degree rule and would be set over two metres away from the shared boundary. It would also have a pitched roof set below the main ridge and would not result in a terracing effect. The proposal would use matching materials, and the appeal property is not within a Conservation Area, nor is it statutorily or locally listed. Even so, together with the proposed hip to gable roof extension and dormer, the combined appearance of these proposed structures would subsume the rear elevation and result in a prominent and imposing massing. The significant difference in land levels would exacerbate their perceived scale and dominance, heightening their looming presence over the street scene when viewed at the rear.

The identified harm could be extended to the proposed single storey side and rear elements, albeit to a lesser degree. This is due to their smaller scale and the existing boundary treatments, which would be more effective in screening views of these developments, than those proposed at first floor and roof level.

For these reasons, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2024 and Policy RA1 of [name] 2011. Together, and amongst other things, these policies seek for developments to respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality, with regard had to massing and materials.

The amendments made to the scheme following discussion with the Council would not overcome the identified harm, for the above reasons. The cited examples of nearby dwellings with rear extensions and a dormer, which I saw on my site visit, are of a different design and scale, and relate to a site context not sufficiently comparable to the appeal scheme. Any alleged inconsistent advice from the Council should be taken up with them directly and is not for me to resolve here.

There is no sufficiently compelling evidence to demonstrate that the appellant’s household needs for improved internal living spaces cannot be met through alternative measures, which might have a lesser impact than the appeal scheme. I remain to be convinced that the proposal is the only way to achieve the outcome the appellant desires. A hip to gable roof extension and dormer might be possible under permitted development rights, but such a scheme is not before me for comparison’s sake. There is no obligation on this decision to require one.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.