Appeal 3271926

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw that the development had commenced and appeared to be substantially complete. I have dealt with this appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area, with due regard to the Amble Conservation Area (CA).

The host property is a terraced house of an understated character. However, the terrace is representative of the historical development of the area. Terraces such as this are a characteristic of the evolution of the town, and as such contribute to the importance of the CA as a designated heritage asset.

Despite being located on the rear roofslope, the dormer is prominent in views from a public square located to the rear of the terrace, as is much of the rear roofslope of the terrace. The roofs of the terrace are generally unaltered, giving the roofslope an uncluttered appearance commensurate with the understated character of the buildings. There is a rear dormer on one of the dwellings which is visible from the public square, but this is of a limited scale and a design which complements the traditional appearance of the area.

In contrast, the proposed flat roofed dormer appears as a substantial box-like addition dominating the rear roofslope of the host dwelling. It is an obtrusive an incongruous feature which detracts from the uncluttered and traditional appearance of the rear roofslope of this extent of the terrace. Details such as the set back from the eaves and use of materials do not mitigate for the harm arising from the inappropriate design of the dormer. There is some variation in the design of buildings along [address], but even within this context the dormer appears as an unsympathetic feature within the roofscape. For these reasons, the dormer will also harm the character and appearance of the CA.

I saw that there were flat roofed dormers elsewhere in the area, including a dormer of a similar design at [address]. In my view the dormer at No 33, whilst permitted by the Council, also demonstrates the harm arising from developments of this nature and should not be used as a precedent to permit similar proposals. In any event, the dormers I observed are some distance from the appeal site and do not set a prevailing context for the site or the CA.

I acknowledge that the appellant erected the dormer in good faith as she did not realise that the property was in the CA. I am also mindful of the personal circumstances of the appellant and issues such as costs of the work and compliance with the building regulations. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

I conclude that the proposal will lead to significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal will also harm the character and appearance of the CA, and whilst that harm is less than substantial, there are no public benefits which would outweigh that harm. The proposal therefore conflicts with the design and heritage requirements of policies S15 and S16 of the Alnwick District Core Strategy 2007, as well as policy BE8 and [name] of the Alnwick District Wide Local Plan 1997. The proposal would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework with regards to achieving well-designed places as well as conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.