Appeal 6005714

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to remove pitched roof from ground floor elements, form single storey extension to the side, form first floor extension to the side and rear, first floor extension with pitched roof, ground floor elements with flat roof and internal alterations at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/01171/FULH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. 2946 09 25 December 2025.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.

No 7 is a semi-detached house set within a section of a suburban street with similar homes of an original hipped roof design. A few of these, including No 7, have been the subject of past single and two-storey extensions. However, the street scene broadly retains its pleasing architectural homogeneity, in terms of general character, scale and spacing.

There are existing single-storey extensions to one side and rear of No 7 with shallow roof pitches which means the dwelling fully occupies a flared plot width. The proposals involve a small enlargement of this single storey element and removal of its pitched roofing; a part of the scheme the Council raises no concerns over. Above this proposed flat-roofed area would be a two-storey addition of smaller extent. This two-storey element would be set back substantially from the front wall of the main house, with matching gable proportions but lower ridge height than the main roof. Consequently, it would appear suitably subservient in scale and complimentary in form, causing no material harm to the appearance of the host dwelling or the street scene from the publicly most accessible views.

The Council’s concerns relate mainly to the rear garden views. The delegated report acknowledges public views are limited but also references wide ranging vantage points. Such views are of a rear elevation dominated by a pre-existing flat-roofed dormer addition. This occupies almost the entire rear roof slope of the house, already causing a major change to the original character of the house. The two-storey element proposed would be at a lower height and wrap around this taller flat roofed feature, moderating its bulky appearance and, if anything, improving the appearance of the rear elevation. The Council has not explained how such an arrangement is either contrived or incongruous, beyond a lack of vertically aligned fenestration. To my mind, the proposal would adapt an already quite altered rear elevation in a contemporary and entirely suitable manner, maintaining subservience in scale and enhancing the rear elevational character of the house.

The Council raises no objection to the principle of the additions, which I consider to be of an acceptable form, scale, design and appearance relative to the existing character of the house. The proposal would fit in acceptably with the current dwelling and cause no material harm to its character and appearance or that of the rear garden scene and surrounding area. As a consequence, I find no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), policies KP2 and CP4 of the [name] (2007), policies DM1 and DM3 of the Development Management Document (2015) or the advice contained within the National Design Guide (2021) and the [name] and [name] (2009).

The Council has assessed the effects of the proposal on neighbouring residents, finding no material harm to their respective amenities. Having reviewed the evidence, I concur with these findings. The scale, position and intervening distances means this proposal would not have a significantly harmful impact on the existing living conditions at neighbouring homes, in respect of either privacy, outlook or access to natural light.

The proposal would comply with the development plan as a whole and, subject to the usual conditions applying a three year time limit for commencement and specifying the approved plans, I conclude the appeal succeeds.