Appeal 3274125

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of loft space from storage to habitable bedroom including hip to gable to the side and dormer to the front and rear, single storey rear extension, conversion of garage to habitable room including removal of garage door and insertion of window at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 20210005 dated 1 January 2021 subject to the following conditions:-

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The Council only have concerns with the front dormer extension. The other works have been previously approved by the Council in another application, and the Council have raised no objections to those works in this application. I agree with their reasoning and conclusion on this matter. I will deal with this appeal solely on the front dormer extension, and no other part of the appeal.

The appeal property is a single-storey semi-detached property in a predominantly residential area. The locality is dominated by single-storey dwellings, many of which have been altered and extended.

Given this visual context of extensions, alterations and other dormers, a front dormer in this location does not appear unusual, and for that reason I do not consider that a front dormer extension of suitable design would be intrusive or out of character for the area.

The proposal would disrupt the symmetry of the semi-detached pair, but as the roof designs are slightly different and the roofing materials are different, in this context I do not consider that the disruption to the symmetry of the pair of dwellings is harmful.

I find that the size of the dormer would be modest and would not dominate or unbalance the host dwelling. It would not interrupt the roofline or detract from the design of the host dwelling. I am satisfied that the front dormer would obey the rules of acceptable scale and design and would sit comfortably within the slope of the roof.

I therefore find no conflict with Policy CS03 of the Leicester City Core Strategy (2014) and Policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan (2006) which, when taken as a whole, amongst other matters, expect development to contribute positively to an area’s character and appearance and take into account the visual quality of the area. I find that it also addresses the design and visual requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

I have included the standard conditions requested by the Council in terms of timescale, approved plans, and matching materials, in the interests of certainty. There were no requests by the Council for additional conditions.

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