Appeal 6005711

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.

The description on the application form differs to the decision notice. However, I am satisfied that the original description accurately describes the appeal scheme and is therefore reflected above. The main issue in regard to which is its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal building is a two-storey detached dwelling sat on the corner of [address] and [address]. It is within a mixed street scene architecturally with some instances of pitched roof dormers and varying rooflines. However, there is a pleasant consistency with the dwellings on [address] and [address] being a conventional two storey height. Whilst some buildings within the locality have been extended previously, they sit comfortably with the wider street scene. The existing windows are proportionate with the building and commensurate with its size and natural hierarchy, getting smaller as they move into the upper floors.

The raising of the roofline would introduce two new pitched roof dormers replacing the original modest arrangement. Whilst the change in roofline form would be different, given the variances on the street scene in terms of pitched roof dormers it would not be an unacceptable feature. However, by virtue of its overall increased height and scale, it would dominate and completely obscure the original roofline. It would be a prominent feature against the surrounding more modest buildings. Moreover, the addition of windows in the pitched roof would emphasise the total height of the building and make for one of noticeably greater substance. It would not give for a recessive feature or follow a natural window hierarchy which is more typical of the street scene.

Notwithstanding the height of the neighbouring dwelling, and the modest change in land levels, this would emphasise its increased height. Moreover, as the building is situated on a corner plot, the scheme would wholly transform the building to a large and incongruous feature viewed from multiple vantage points which resultantly would exacerbate its alien nature against the modestly scaled dwellings and the general consistency of the street scene.

The scheme would introduce a level of symmetry to the front and rear elevations. However, I am not sufficiently convinced that this would make the above effects acceptable. The appellant has supplied photographs of other buildings in the local vicinity which have been extended, but I have been given only limited information on their circumstances such as whether they have express planning permission or what the policies and guidance such decisions were made against. The presence of such examples would not make me conclude differently on the appeal proposal.

With the above in mind, the overall proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with Policy JP-P1 of Places for Everyone 2024 and SPD4 of the Guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2012 and the relevant sections of the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan. I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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