Appeal 6006634

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

The appeal property comprises a chalet style bungalow of distinctive design, with accommodation arranged over two floors. It features a half hipped roof incorporating a centrally positioned gable dormer, flanked symmetrically by ‘eyebrow’ dormer windows on either side. This roof form is repeated on the rear elevation, resulting in a balanced and visually notable appearance that contributes significantly to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its relationship with the street scene. The height and pitch of the roof and the presence of prominent chimneys are additional characteristics which contribute to the property’s distinctiveness and contribution to the street scene.

The surrounding area mainly consists of large, detached dwellings set back from the road in a consistent building line. Most are two-storey with hipped roofs, often with wall-hung tiles at first floor level and feature gables and porches. The consistency in setback, form and materials make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development would result in a material increase in mass and scale across all elevations and would entail the removal of the distinctive dormer window features present on both the front and rear elevations. I accept that the proposed design acknowledges the distinctive dormer features with a high gable to the front and roof lights on the front elevation in symmetry. However, the design falls short of the significant contribution the existing elements make to the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The resultant increase in mass and scale of the proposal would be most pronounced on the west elevation, though it would also be readily apparent from all other aspects, by reason of the appreciable increases in both height and depth. This perceived amplification of mass and scale would be further accentuated by the introduction of a crown roof form that would appear uncharacteristic in this context.

[name] accept there are several properties with a crown roof form in the wider area, those roofs are of a materially smaller scale than the proposed design and separated from the appeal site by distance. Furthermore, I have no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate if those crown roofs are the result of a grant of planning permission, what the main considerations were and what iteration of the development plan and policies were considered. As such I afford them limited weight.

I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policy CS17 of the [name] 2011 and Policy DM2 of the Development Management Plan 2015, insofar as they seek high quality design that responds to the positive features of individual locations and integrates with the locally distinctive townscape. In addition, the proposal conflicts with guidance in the [name] 2024 insofar as it seeks roof extensions that are similar to that of the existing dwelling in terms of scale, design, and the angle of the pitch. The proposal would also conflict with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 insofar as it seeks good design that reflects local design policies and guidance.

I acknowledge that the appellant has undertaken pre-application discussions with the Council and taken on board comments that were made. Such an approach is commendable and promoted by the Framework. However, such discussions are customarily given without prejudice to the formal decision of the Council. I therefore attach only limited weight to them in this appeal.

I acknowledge that the use of materials is intended to reflect those of the wider area. I also accept that the proposal would not be harmful in terms of living conditions. However, these neutral factors would not outweigh the harm I have identified in terms of form, mass, and scale. Furthermore, the appellant wishes to bring the appeal site up to modern requirements. This is a personal benefit that would not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I 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.