Appeal 3270649

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed rear dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

No. [site address] (No.51) is a two-storey terraced dwelling located on the southern side of [address]. To the rear there is an existing dormer extension with Juliette balcony across the full width of the main part of the roof. The proposed dormer would adjoin and slightly over sail the existing, projecting over the original two-storey rear outrigger of No.51.

The proposed dormer would extend to a depth of around 3.7m from the main rear elevation of No.51, set back from the edge of the rear elevation of the outrigger by only around 1.3m. It would be sited very close to the eaves of the outrigger, above the existing ridgeline and extend up to the party parapet wall with its adjoined neighbour. The guidance in the [name] and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2015) (SPD) is that roof extensions should not dominate the original roof and should be set well in from either side. The proposed dormer necessarily adjoins the main rear elevation, but despite the set-back from the edge of the rear of the outrigger, the siting so close to the eaves and above the ridge means that the dormer would all but consume the roof of the outrigger. Its proportions would appear oversized, and it would dominate the original roof, contrary to the SPD guidance.

Further, in combination with the existing full width dormer to the main elevation of No.51, little of the original roof form would remain visible or legible and the profile of the roof would be entirely altered. Although there are only semi-public views of the rear of No.[address] of neighbouring dwellings (including those on [address]) and the rear ginnel, because of this the proposal would appear a discordant addition to both the host dwelling and the rear of the terrace.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other examples of extensions, including roof extensions, to the rear of dwellings on [address]. I have not been provided with full details of these extensions or know the circumstances of whether they were built pursuant to householder permitted development rights, or not. However, I saw on my site visit that existing dormer extensions close to No.51 appeared to leave a reasonable amount of roof space and, in the case of extensions to the outrigger, had a greater setback from the eaves and edge of the roof than the proposal before me. In contrast to the proposed dormer at No.51, they appeared subordinate to the existing roof and do not therefore lend any particular support to the appeal proposal.

I recognise that the proposed dormer would provide valuable additional accommodation within the roofspace for family living, exercise, and home working, which has been particularly important during Covid-19. However, whilst a benefit of the proposal, in this case I find it does not outweigh the harm that I have identified to character and appearance above.

In conclusion on the main issue, the proposed rear dormer would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. Therefore, in addition to the conflict with the SPD guidance I identify above, the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan (2018) Policy LP1 which requires development to be compatible with local character including proportions, scale and form.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.