Erection of 2no. first floor front gable extensions to replace existing front dormers

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 12 May 2021 by R Morgan BSc (Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/W4325/D/21/3268067 57 Mere Avenue, Raby Mere, Wirral, CH63 0NE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Robert Stenton against the decision of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref APP/20/01239, dated 31 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 10 November 2020. • The development proposed is the erection of 2no. first floor front gable extensions to replace existing front dormers. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the description of development from the decision notice and appeal form, which more accurately describes the proposal than that used on the original application form. Main Issue 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the area, and • The living conditions of the occupiers of 59 Mere Avenue with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 4. Mere Avenue is a quiet residential street characterised by modern detached houses which vary in their appearance, but are of a similar age and style. Wide windows and shallow roof pitches give a strongly horizontal emphasis to the design of the houses. The layout of the street is spacious and open, with the houses set back from the road behind unenclosed front gardens and wide grass verges. The front building lines are stepped where the properties follow the curvature of the road. 5. In the area immediately surrounding the appeal property (No. 57), most of the houses have an integral garage which projects at the front, with a dormer window above. Whilst not all of the properties in the street have front dormers, and some have been altered, these wide windowed features with gently sloping flat roofs are nonetheless a distinctive element within the street. Appeal Decision APP/W4325/D/21/3268067 2 6. The appeal property differs from the surrounding houses as the front living space is also sited forward of the central porch, with a second front dormer at first floor level. Not all of the houses in the street have dormers, so their loss would not in itself be harmful to the character of the area. However, with the exception of the small gable above the dormer window at the adjacent property, front gables are not a typical feature of Mere Avenue. 7. By increasing the forward projection of the garage so that it aligns with the living room, and replacing the two front dormers with twin gables, the proposed scheme would provide a more symmetrical appearance to the house. However, the introduction of two large front gables would change the appearance of the house significantly, resulting in a vertical emphasis to the design which would fail to respect the character of the existing house and the surrounding area. The existing property is not particularly dominant within the street, but the introduction of the two front gables would appear incongruous and would draw attention to the house, increasing its prominence to a harmful degree. 8. I conclude that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area. It would conflict with Saved Policy HS11 of the Wirral Unitary Development Plan 2000 (UDP) which requires, amongst other considerations, that design features such as roof form and line match or complement the existing building. There is also conflict with advice in the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), regarding the need to consider the specific character of the building to be extended, and to take account of its context. Living conditions 9. The appeal property is sited considerably further forward compared with its immediate neighbour, 59 Mere Avenue (No. 59), and will already provide a sense of enclosure when viewed from the front windows of that property. This will particularly affect the ground floor window, which currently looks out towards the solid brick wall of the appeal property’s garage. The proposal to extend this element forward, over two floors, would further compound the effect on the outlook from No. 59. When viewed from the ground floor window, the proposed increased projection and height of the brick wall close to the shared boundary would increase the sense of enclosure, to the extent that it would appear oppressive and overbearing. 10. Furthermore, the proposed extension at first floor level would mean that, rather than looking out towards the long sloping roof and side wall of the dormer as in the current situation, the outlook from the first floor window at No. 59 would be towards a much larger expanse of brick wall. Even though the roof would slope away towards the gable ridge, the effect would appear overly dominant from the neighbouring first floor window. 11. I conclude that the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of occupiers of 59 Mere Avenue with regard to outlook. Consequently, it would conflict with criteria (i) of Saved UPD Policy HS11 which requires that particular regard be had to the effect of extensions on the outlook from neighbours’ habitable rooms, and the guidance in the SPG which states that extensions should not be visually overbearing or dominant when viewed from adjoining houses. Appeal Decision APP/W4325/D/21/3268067 3 Conclusion 12. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed. R Morgan INSPECTOR