Planning officer wants us to change the roof pitch — is this normal?

We're doing a side return extension and the planning officer has come back saying the roof pitch must match the existing house exactly (42 degrees). Our architect had designed it at 35 degrees to create a better internal ceiling height.

Is this the kind of thing officers typically dig their heels in on? Or is it worth pushing back? The extension is at the side of the house and barely visible from the street, so I'm struggling to see why 7 degrees matters.

Would a design and access statement help here, or is that overkill for a single-storey extension?

Officers often default to "match existing" because it's the safe option and hard to argue against at committee. But if your architect can demonstrate that the 35-degree pitch creates a better design outcome (better proportions, more light, etc.) you have a case.

A design and access statement isn't overkill — it's exactly what it's for. Keep it short and visual. Committee members love a good before/after diagram.

We had the exact same battle. Our architect produced a one-page visual showing how the steeper pitch created a "bookend" effect that actually improved the street scene. The committee loved it and approved unanimously.

Sometimes officers are just covering themselves. Give the committee something positive to vote FOR rather than just asking them to overrule the officer.

That's a great approach. Our architect is now working on a visual comparison. Fingers crossed for committee next month.