Appeal 6006411

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal relates to a two-storey, semi-detached property of brick and tile construction. The dwelling has a hipped roof and two-storey extension to its side. The side extension also includes a hipped roof with its ridge line set below that of the main roof. Therefore, the existing side extension respects the form of the original dwelling and appears visually subservient. The attached semi-detached property has a two-storey flat roofed extension to its side. Notwithstanding the differing forms of the side extensions, the semi-detached pairing retain a good degree of visual balance which is created by the general uniformity of the front elevations and consistent hipped roof form to the main roof.

Properties along [address] are similar in appearance. The street is characterised by consistent hipped roofs which create a strong sense of uniformity. Where two-storey side extensions are present, these generally incorporate hipped or flat roofs. This ensures the main original hipped roof retains its visual dominance. However, on my site visit, I did observe one example of a hip-to-gable alteration within the street at No.[address] (No.42).

The appeal scheme proposes a loft conversion which would be facilitated by the construction of a rear dormer, and a hip-to-gable extension to the existing main roof. The Council does not raise any particular concern with regard to the rear dormer element. The roof dormer would be large, however, its position to the rear would mean that it would not appear visually prominent. As such, I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions on that part of the scheme. The Council is primarily concerned with the visual effects of the proposed hip-to-gable alteration.

The hipped roof form is a defining characteristic of both the host dwelling and the street scene. The loss of the main hipped roof in its entirety would result in the erosion of this established characteristic. The alteration would result in the elongation of the main ridgeline, adding greater mass to the roof of the appeal property. Furthermore, it is proposed that the existing side extension would retain its hipped roof form. Retaining a hipped roof on the side extension while altering the main roof to a gable would create an incoherent roof composition. Elongating the ridgeline would also introduce disproportionate mass to one half of the semi-detached pair. This would dilute the sense of symmetry that currently exists. Consequently, the roof form and additional mass would result in the semi-detached pairing appearing visually imbalanced. The resultant roof would be set against the prevailing hipped roofscape of the street and would appear visually anomalous.

I acknowledge that there has been a hip-to-gable roof alteration at No.42. I do not know the circumstances behind this alteration, but I note that this property does not include a hipped roofed side extension attached to it. As such, this context is not wholly comparable with the appeal scheme. In any event, that extension imbalances the semi-detached pairing and appears as an anomaly in a roofscape which is dominated by hipped roofs. Its presence demonstrates an isolated departure rather than a shift in the established character of the street. Therefore, adding a similar roof form which contrasts with the prevailing characteristics of the street would not be a positive intervention. As such, the presence of this alteration does not alter my conclusions.

A number of other examples of hip-to-gable alterations in the wider area have been brought to my attention. However, these do not share the same immediate visual context and therefore do not meaningfully inform my assessment of this proposal. Therefore, I attach little weight to the presence of hip-to-gable alterations in the wider area.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the development is contrary to saved Policy CDH1.8 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (2006), and Policy SIE-1 of the [name] (2011). Together, amongst other things, these seek to deliver high quality design which complements the existing building.

The development would enhance accommodation within the property, resulting in an improvement to the existing housing stock. I acknowledge that this is a benefit of the proposed development. However, I attach limited weight to this benefit as the improvements relate to a single dwelling only. As such, this benefit would not outweigh the permanent harm to the character and appearance of the area which I have identified.

I also acknowledge that the development would not result in any harm to residential amenity. However, the absence of identified harm is not a benefit of the scheme and is neutral factor in my overall assessment.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.