Appeal 6005252

The appeal is dismissed.

The address in the application form differs from that on the Council’s decision notice and all subsequent correspondence. I noted from street signs on my site visit that the appeal site is located on [address] and I am satisfied that the address of the appeal site is not that cited in the application form therefore I have adopted the alternative address in my heading above.

The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling in a prominent position on the junction of [address] with [address]. A defining feature is its cat-slide style hipped roof. The adjoining neighbour, [address] (No.1), is broadly symmetrical in shape, form and massing to the appeal property. This pair of properties are the only properties that incorporate cat-slide roofs in the immediate locality. This lends them a distinct form and character shared by only a handful of properties nearby. Thus, in location and character, the appeal property is somewhat unique.

The appeal proposal involves a first-floor side extension above the existing ground floor. It would increase the height of the brick gable elevation to first floor eaves height and would incorporate a hipped roof above.

[address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (SPD) states that a well designed extension should be subordinate in relation to the dwelling and should be of a size and scale which is in proportion to the existing house, with overly large side extensions having the potential to ruin the character of the property or unbalance a symmetrical pair of semi-detached dwellings.

The loss of the cat-slide roof would disrupt the balanced roof form shared by the appeal property and No.1. It serves as a distinctive feature and its removal would undermine their established symmetry. A hipped roof and matching materials would not minimise this visual harm as the mass created by the raised elevations of the extension, combined with the prominence of the appeal property on the junction with [address], would accentuate the imbalanced proportion of the appeal property relative to No.1. Moreover, although neighbouring properties do not feature cat-slide roofs, the corner position of the appeal property would expose the extension’s side elevation, drawing attention to its disproportionate height and design within the street scene.

I recognise that cat-slide roofs are not a protected feature and are but one of a range of roof forms found in the locality. However, the character and appearance of the area is established through variations in the style of roofs between each pair of semi-detached dwellings, rather than within the pairs themselves. [name] accept there are exceptions to this, and a number of examples have been drawn to my attention. All the examples are located some distance from the appeal property and are not viewed in the same context as the appeal property.

None of the examples cited are located on a junction, as is the case of the appeal before me. Moreover, the examples at [address], [address] and others on [address] are not comparable in style or form to the appeal property. I also do not know the exact circumstances of how they came into being, therefore am unable to draw direct parallels with the scheme before me. Nevertheless, their presence does not persuade me to reach an alternative conclusion on the appeal and does not overcome the harm that I have otherwise found, which I have determined on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence before me. As such, limited weight is attached to these examples in arriving at my

The provision of parking on the site is not in dispute and the lack of objections to the proposal from both the Council’s Highways Department and surrounding neighbours, as well as compliance with other Local Plan policies does not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (2024) and Policy OA5 of [name] (2011) which seek development that respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, siting, size and scale with special attention given to massing and the materials used.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.