Appeal 6006072

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the wider area.

The site consists of a detached property within the village of [site address] . It lies within the Quantock Hills National Landscape, also known as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). To the rear of the site, the land slopes downwards as part of attractive rolling countryside, and towards the coastline.

[site address] consists of a linear ribbon of dwellings. Properties on the western side of the road, such as the appeal site, are generally set at a lower level, reflecting the falling landscape. With some exceptions, for example at nearby Greenhills, many of these properties have hipped roofs. They contrast with the elevated position of properties on the other side of the road, many of which have gabled roofs.

The appeal dwelling is split-level, appearing as a bungalow from the front. It has a hipped roof, and a rear patio and balcony. The dwelling and others locally have external materials of render, stone cladding and brick. It is one of three dwellings set back from the road behind a shared private drive. Each has differing extensions, footprints and in some cases dormers. Nevertheless, all have a very similar design of roof, being large and hipped, with low eaves. This gives them a sense of uniformity as a group, and reflects others on the western side of the road.

The proposal seeks to extend the hipped roof of the appeal property to form gables at either side. Given its location and the design of the adjacent and nearby properties, the resultant dwelling would appear odd and out of place, undermining the degree of uniformity. Despite the presence of roadside hedging, these adverse effects would be seen from the road, for example through the access drive entrance.

The proposal includes a shallow-roofed dormer on the rear elevation, with full-height French windows and a second balcony. These features would take up a large part of the rear roofscape. As such, they would appear excessively dominant and top-heavy, in contrast to the dormers of the adjoining properties, which are more respectful of the current roof form. The colour of the Cedral cladding on the dormer sides would match the existing roof. Even so, the use of such cladding would appear artificial and out of place, given the more traditional external materials used on the property and locally.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the wider area. On this basis, it would conflict with policies BD/3 and NH14 of the West Somerset Local Plan, adopted November 2016. These require development to have a scale, proportions and materials that are in character, and have a high quality of design within the AONB. For the same reasons, it would not accord with the Council’s Design Guide, which encourages alterations and extensions that respect and enhance the character of the original house.

The proposal would have environmental advantages, including improved insulation and energy efficiency. It would create more space for the growing family who live there. However, being primarily private benefits, these matters are not of sufficient weight to overcome the harm that I have identified.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, and the weight I give to them, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.