Appeal 6004356

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.

The appeal property is a 2-storey detached dwelling, previously extended to the side and finished in white render. It retains attractive features, including double height bay windows with gable over and an arched entrance door. [address] is characterised by large, traditionally styled dwellings set back from the road along a relatively consistent building line, with similar facing brickwork, overall heights and proportions, hipped roofs and recurring bay window features. There is a cohesiveness to the layout and pattern with many repeating house types that have predominantly retained their original character and form.

The appeal proposal includes hip-to-gable extensions on both sides, an overall ridge height increase of approximately 520mm, an increased overall height and altered roof pitch of the front feature gable, insertion of 3 front roof lights and a substantial rear dormer extending across most of the roof to just below the raised ridge. Collectively, these works would significantly alter the roof form and materially increase the dwelling’s visual mass, resulting in an incoherent and incongruous form that fails to respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and established street scene.

The appellant contends that the increased ridge height has been specifically designed to align with the neighbouring property at [address], creating a more coherent roofline, and is necessary to provide Building Regulation compliant internal ceiling heights for the proposed habitable accommodation within the roof space. However, the existing relationship between these two properties reflects the prevailing character of the street, and these considerations do not therefore outweigh the harm I have identified above.

The nearby examples cited by the appellant are not directly comparable. [address] and [address] are corner plots within materially different street contexts, characterised by greater variation in form, building line and levels. [address] has undergone more limited alterations, with the overall height and roof form largely unchanged. Similarly, at [address], whilst a rear dormer has been added, it does not exceed the ridge height or extend across the full width of the dwelling. Taken together, despite their presence, these examples do not provide clear support for the scale or nature of the proposed development.

Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy H16 of the City of Derby Local Plan Review (January

and Policies CP3 and CP4 of the Derby City Local Plan – Part 1: [name] (January 2017) which together seek to secure high quality architecture which safeguards the character and appearance of existing dwellings and their surroundings with careful regard to building form, scale, height and massing.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan considered as a whole and material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework and National Design Guide, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.