Replacement of roof tiles

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 September 2018 by Nick Palmer BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T3535/D/18/3207239 19 Grosvenor Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0BW  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 Brandon Taylor of Taylor Properties Trading Limited against the decision of Waveney District Council.  The application Ref DC/17/5226/FUL, dated 11 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 February 2018.  The development proposed is replacement of roof tiles. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The property is within the South Lowestoft Conservation Area which is characterised by 19th century housing, mostly in terraces, along roads that extend from London Road South. At the end of Grosvenor Road the houses on both sides are of three storeys. The appeal property is the first in one of those terraces. These houses are of gault brick with two storey bays, recessed porches and gabled dormer windows set within mansard roofs. Their roofs were covered in slate originally but a significant number have been re-roofed with concrete tiles. 4. The form of the terraces provides a unified character. The mansard and dormer roofs are prominent features in the street scene and the proposal would have a significant effect on the appearance of the property. On my visit I noted that around three quarters of the houses in Grosvenor Road as a whole have concrete tiled roofs. If the three storey houses at the end of the road are considered in isolation, this proportion is nearer to half. Thus while concrete tiles form an established part of the character and appearance of the area, the original slate material also remains a key part of that character and appearance. 5. The concrete tiles that I saw in the area differ from slate in terms of their thickness, colour and profile. Details of the proposed roofing material are not before me but I find it likely that any concrete tile would differ significantly in its appearance from the original slate. In the context of the roof design of the Appeal Decision APP/T3535/D/18/3207239 2 property and the unified appearance of the terrace, the proposed concrete tiles would be prominent. They would further disrupt the original architectural integrity of the terrace. The position of the property at the end of a terrace and adjacent to two storey houses increases the prominence of its roof in the street scene and therefore the effect of the proposal on character and appearance. 6. For these reasons the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. The harm to the Conservation Area would be less than substantial because of the presence of concrete tiled roofs in the area. No evidence of public benefit is before me that would outweigh that harm. 7. Policy DM30 of the Waveney Development Management Policies (2011) requires preservation or enhancement of the character and appearance of Conservation Areas and requires high quality and sensitive design. For the reasons given the proposal would not accord with that policy. 8. I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Nick Palmer INSPECTOR