Appeal 6008549

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/00185/003, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site plan, Block plan, 02/Gle/01, 02/Gle/02, 02/Gle/13.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed hip to gable conversion and rear dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the street scene of The Glen and the surrounding area.

The Glen is a quiet residential street of mainly traditional semi-detached houses. There are some later infill dwellings and a number of detached houses. Older dwellings were built with traditional hipped roofs and most of these are retained. In some cases, two storey side extensions have been added. The newer dwellings have both gabled and hipped roofs.

The appeal dwelling is a traditional semi-detached house on a large plot. It has an existing two storey side extension and single and two storey rear extensions. Its semi-detached pair has a similar side extension. The proposed hip to gable conversion would be to the original roof. It would abut the existing side extension Appeal Decision Ref: 6008549 which has a hipped roof. It would be slightly higher and set forward of the extension, owing to the set down and set back character of the extension.

The proposed hip to gable alteration would leave the existing hipped two storey side extension unaltered. There would thus be a visible join between the two elements. The appellant has drawn my attention to a similar arrangement on a comparable dwelling in a nearby street and I saw that there are others nearby. In general, these create a satisfactory juxtaposition between the two elements, with the hipped extension softening the effect of the gable end conversion. I consider that the proposed development would have an equally acceptable effect on the host dwelling.

The Council suggests that the proposed extension of the ridge at the appeal dwelling would materially alter its original massing, form and design. However, the original width of the dwelling would remain clearly discernible, owing to the set down of the existing extension. Moreover, Nos 6 and 10 nearby already have side extensions that have resulted in a similar extension to the ridge. The resultant massing and form at the appeal dwelling would not be dissimilar. These other examples differ from the appeal proposal in that the side extensions, whilst having hipped roofs, are not set down or back from the original dwelling. In terms of design, the ability to read the original width would thus be better preserved at the appeal dwelling.

The Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document, 2010, sets out in EX33 that alterations to a roof including changing its shape will not normally be permitted. The explanatory text sets out that roofs form an important part of the character of the original dwelling and alterations can be highly visible in the street scene. I agree. However, whilst not visible from the appeal property, there are several hip to gable conversions in The Glen on dwellings where the adjoining dwelling remains hipped. These may have been completed as permitted development, nevertheless, they contribute to the established character of the street scene. Moreover, as reasoned above, the proposed conversion, would be less stark than other examples nearby and would not materially detract from the character of the original dwelling. In consequence, it would not appear out of place in The Glen. In that context, I find the conflict with the guidance in EX33 may be set aside in this case.

The Council is further concerned that the proposal would unbalance the semi-detached pair but since there would be no change to the overall width of the building or the building line of the façade, and the proposed gable roof form would be tempered by the hip-roofed extension, the degree of unbalancing would be limited and not appear out of place in the street scene.

The rear dormer would be set within the extended roof slope, well in from either side, below the ridge and up from the eaves. Whilst large it would not appear overwhelming. Although it would alter the relationship between the roof of the existing two storey rear extension and the original dwelling, this would result in a satisfactory arrangement that would be unseen from the street and masked from the rear by the existing extension.

Overall, I consider that, despite the mix of roof forms, the careful design would result in an acceptable juxtaposition between them, such that the dwelling retained Appeal Decision Ref: 6008549 its original character, and its appearance would be sympathetic and in harmony with the wider area.

It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed hip to gable conversion and rear dormer would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or appearance of the host dwelling, the street scene of The Glen or the surrounding area. In consequence, the development would comply with Policies EN1, EN2 and H15 of The Local Plan for Slough, 2004, and Policy 8 of the [name] 2006- 2026 Development Plan Document, 2008. Taken together and amongst other things these expect extensions to be of a high quality design that respects and is compatible in terms of scale and design with the host building and surrounding area. In particular, extensions should be designed such that they are in keeping with the host building and have no adverse effect on the existing street scene.

Turning to conditions, in addition to the statutory commencement condition, conditions are necessary to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in materials that match the host dwelling. This is for the avoidance of doubt and to protect the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.