Appeal 6004988

The appeal is dismissed.

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

[site address] is a semi-detached house built in the inter-war period of two storeys with a hipped roof. It is located in a street of similar semi and detached properties set on an irregular building line. Hipped roofs predominate and many properties have shallow porch extensions on their front elevations. The most successful of those have a hipped roof with a slope that matches that of the main roof. Those dwellings contribute positively to the traditional, suburban character and appearance of the area.

The appeal dwelling has been recently substantially altered and extended following a permission (ref 22/2111/HSE) granted in 2022 that included a first floor side extension and garage and loft conversions. It also included a front extension of 2m in depth with a monopitch roof. Following construction during which the front extension was built with a depth of 2.7m, a subsequent permission (ref 23/0854/HSE) was then granted for a similar scheme but with some changes to the original permission. That included a front extension of the same 2m depth as originally approved but with a front facing gable pitch roof. That permission was approved with the condition that within 6 months from the date of the permission, the single storey front extension should be reduced in depth to 2m to be in accordance with the approved plans. The reduction was not carried out and a further retrospective application in 2023 (ref 23/1690/HSE) for a front extension with a depth of 2.7m was refused and later dismissed at appeal in 2024. The current proposal seeks to retain the 2.7m depth as built but proposes a different style of roof, in a part hipped / part monopitch form.

Although the proposed roof form would be similar in style to the shallower roof canopy at the adjoining semi at no 31 and attempts to address some of the previous inspector’s concerns regarding the gabled roof form, the proposal would not address the concerns of that inspector over ‘the significant depth of the extension’.

At my visit I noted that the adjacent detached dwelling at no 35 has an attached flat roofed garage that projects forwards of the building line and that the front extension of the appeal dwelling is set back slightly from that. However, I saw no directly comparable front extensions in the immediate context of the appeal site. The additional brickwork in the wall of the flank elevation necessary for the proposed monopitch roof above that part of the extension as a result of its depth would increase the scale and bulk of that part of the extension. Although it would be partially screened by the adjacent garage, the garage is lower in height with a flat roof and the depth of the proposal would therefore be apparent in the approach from the north west as well as from the south east. As such, it would be at odds with other nearby front extensions and would appear bulky and unduly dominant in the street scene.

I conclude then that the proposal, by reason of its depth, would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area. As such, it would be contrary to development plan policies CS22 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2013) and SAD30 of its Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016) which together seek to ensure that proposals are of a high quality design and respect the scale and bulk of the area.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. The appeal should be dismissed.