Appeal 3282422

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling and area.

The proposed rear flat roof dormer would span almost the full width and height of the existing roof plane of the appeal property and would not appear subordinate to the host roof. The cumulative scale and excessive bulk of the dormer, combined with the proposed hip to roof extension, would be overly prominent and subsume the existing bungalow. On this basis, the appeal proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of both the appeal property and the area.

I recognise that rear dormers have been constructed in the area. However, from the limited information before me, the circumstances of the properties which the appellant refers to differ from the appeal scheme, as set out below: i. It appears that the dormer extension to No [address] does not span the full width of the rear roof plane of the property. ii. Whilst there appear to be similarities between the rear roof extension to [address] and the appeal proposal, this is a historic consent which was granted prior to the adoption of the [name] and the Development Management Policies document. iii. The information within the [name] indicates that roof works to Nos 52 and [address] and No [address] have been completed under Permitted Development Rights. The appeal proposal exceeds what it would be possible to construct under Permitted Development. I therefore attribute limited weight to these in considering the appeal. That aside, each proposal must be considered on its own merit and, as such, I have found undue harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and area.

In view of the above, the appeal proposal would be contrary to Policy CP12 of the Three Rivers District Council, Local Development Framework, [name] (2011) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Three Rivers District Council, Local Plan, Development Management Policies Local Development Document (2013) which, taken together, seek to secure a high standard of design which respects the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and area.

I have considered a number of matters raised by the appellant in support of her proposal, as follows: i. There is a mix of property types in the vicinity, including two-storey houses and a number of two-storey flat buildings. ii. The appeal property is in need of updating. iii. The Council has allocated sites in the area for residential development as part of their development plan process. iv. The living conditions of neighbouring residents would not be harmed by the proposal. v. Adequate off-road parking would be retained as part of the development. None of these matters, either on their own or when considered cumulatively, outweigh the significant harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.

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