Appeal 3281936

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. [name] of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, the Council changed the wording on the decision letter forming a split decision. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application.

The Council issued a split decision granting planning permission for Proposal A, ‘conversion of garage roof to pitched; Addition of door to side elevation and sliding doors to rear elevation; Relocation of the entrance door to front elevation’ and refused the application in respect of Proposal B, ‘Roof extension to existing front dormer’. I am satisfied from the evidence, that the Council do not find Proposal A, to be unacceptable. My deliberations and decision are therefore focused solely upon Proposal B, roof extension to the front dormer.

The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposed pitched roof extension to the front dormer on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and (ii) the effect of the proposed pitched roof extension to the front dormer on the living conditions of the occupants of No.[address] (No.43), with particular reference to light and outlook.

The appeal site is within a predominantly residential area mainly characterised by both detached and semi-detached bungalows. The property forms a pair of semi-detached dormer bungalows of similar appearance and characterised with identical features including front flat roof dormers. The property is positioned at the start of a cul-de-sac and directly opposite are an identical pair of dormer bungalows, whilst the rest of the Close are detached bungalows with single storey protruding front gables. Despite some variation in form, the properties in the area present a discreet arrangement that appreciably contributes towards the local character.

The proposed pitched roof extension to the front dormer would result in almost half of the original flat roof dormer having a large pitched roof and significantly protruding out onto the roof slope. Therefore, it would result in a poor miss-match of design to the front elevation and relationship to the existing form of the flat roof dormer. Despite, the footprint of the property not being increased, given the resultant excessive height, width and depth of the proposed dormer it would result in an unbalanced, bulky and dominant addition in relation to the existing front elevation and roof slope.

Furthermore, the proposed materials would be unsympathetic as the white cladding would be excessive on the proposed dormer. When this is combined with its overall scale, width, minimal setback and excessive depth across the host property it would appear incongruous and have a negative appearance. Accordingly, it would detract from the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed pitched roof extension to the front dormer would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. It would conflict with Saved Policy H2/3 of the Bury Unitary Development Plan, 1997, Saved by way of direction 2007, which has regard to the size, shape, design and external appearance of the proposal and the character of the property in question and the surrounding area.

I also find it would be at odds with the guidance in the Supplementary Planning Document 6 Alterations and Extensions to [name], 2010 (SPD6), which requires domestic extensions and alterations to achieve high standards, and seeks to ensure that proposals for dormer/roof extensions preserve the character of the street scene.

No.43 is a detached single storey bungalow and positioned to the side of the appeal site. The rear elevation of No.43 directly faces onto the appeal property and contains a number of openings to habitable rooms. The proposed pitched roof extension to the dormer would result in only a short separation distance between the rear and those windows on No.46. Despite, the appellant advising windows would be frosted to reduce outlook/privacy into the neighbouring property. The dormer extension would not meet the guidance contained in SPD6, which requires extensions to maintain a minimum separation distance of 13m.

Therefore, when viewed from the rear windows, in particular the bedroom window of No.43 the extended dormer would appear rather stark, excessive in size and overbearing. It would be viewed as a two-storey side addition when looking up from both the windows and when stood in the rear garden area of No.43. All to the detriment of the existing living conditions and outlook of No.43.

Given the position of existing windows and that the proposed dormer is sited on the roof slope, it would be unlikely that there would be any loss of light to the bedroom window to an unacceptable degree. However, this does not outweigh the harm I have found in regard to outlook.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed pitched roof extension to the front dormer would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.43, with particular reference to outlook. It would conflict with Saved Policy H2/3 of the UDP, which has regard to the consideration of amenity of adjacent properties. It would also be in conflict with the guidance contained within SPD6, in regard to aspect standards to protect privacy and residential amenity.

I acknowledge that the Council issued a split decision for ‘Proposal A’ and ‘Proposal B’. [name] have the power to issue a split decision on an appeal, this is discretionary, and I am not obliged to do so. I do not consider that parts of the proposal which are acceptable are physically clearly severable from that part which is not. In this case, the modifications to the garage roof would be attached to the pitched roof extension to the front dormer. Moreover, I do not consider that such a split decision would be clearly and easily defined with reference to the submitted drawings. Therefore, a split decision would not be appropriate in this case.

The proposed roof extension to the existing front dormer conflicts with the development plan, taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.