Appeal 3278354

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of nearby occupiers, with regard to overlooking.

The appeal site is a two-storey detached house located on [address], adjacent to the [name] listed [address] and within the Frenchay Conservation Area (FCA). The dwelling is white rendered with a shallow pitched roof and a pitched roof gable on the front elevation. The proposal seeks to raise the ridge height of the existing roof and introduce 3no pitched-roof rear dormers, along with some internal alterations.

Although the dormer size has been reduced from a previous application, the three proposed dormer windows would occupy a significant portion of the roof. The existing first-floor windows on the host property are minimal in size particularly at first floor level. By contrast, the addition of three large dormer windows would appear incongruous and overly dominant. Although some aspects of the design meet the dimension requirements in the [site address] Council Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, adopted 2021 (SPD), the installation of three large dormers would appear excessive and subsequently harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. On the site visit it was observed that the adjacent [address] has three dormer windows. However, these are much smaller in relation to the host dwelling and respect its design.

Although the Council did not find any harm would arise to the FCA or the setting of the listed building in terms of the proposed raised ridge height, this does not minimise the harm that would arise from the dormer windows. Due to the site being elevated from nearby dwellings, and the development being at roof level, the excessive dormers would be highly visible from nearby properties. As the appeal property is located within the FCA the harm that would arise to its character and appearance would result in a failure to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the FCA.

For the reasons given above, the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would not accord with Policy CS1 of the [site address] Local Plan: [name], adopted 2013 and Policies PSP1 and PSP38 of the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (PSPP), adopted 2017. Collectively, these Policies ensure that development is of high-quality design and respectful of the host dwelling and local area.

The rear elevation of Coniscliffe faces towards properties on [address] at an oblique angle, and there is an existing degree of overlooking due to its elevated siting. The introduction of three dormer windows would increase opportunities for outlook from habitable rooms at roof-level. However, given the offset siting, the appeal property and the neighbouring dwellings do not face directly back-to-back.

The SPD recommends a separation distance of 28m for three-storey back-to-back properties. The closest measurement from the dormer to the nearest neighbouring property would be just below this. However, the SPD advises that where houses face each other at an angle the separation distances may be reduced. Taking the distance and oblique angle into account the development would not result in unacceptable overlooking. On the site visit it was observed that there is soft landscaping obstructing the view from the appeal site to properties on [address]. Even if the landscaping were reduced or removed in the future, separation distances would be such that undue overlooking would not occur.

For the reasons outlined above, the development would not be detrimental to the living conditions of nearby occupants with regard to overlooking. It would accord with Policies PSP8 and PSP38 of the PSPP, which together require that development does not prejudice the amenity of nearby residents or result in an unacceptable loss of privacy from overlooking. Furthermore, the development would not contravene the separation distances in the SPD and it would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to secure a high standard of amenity.

Although the development would not have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties, this does not outweigh the harm that has been found to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and FCA. The proposal would not accord with the Development Plan when it is considered as a whole. For the reasons given above, I recommend the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.