Appeal 3283262

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal includes a front dormer window which is shown on the submitted plans and referred to on the decision notice in the reason for refusal. However, it is excluded from the description of the proposal on the application form, the appeal form and the decision notice. There are also no first floor plans indicating the purpose of the dormer window but the proposed ground floor plans indicate a new staircase which would seem to access a first floor. Regardless of these omissions, the proposal does seem to include the dormer window and so I have included it in my assessment of this appeal.

I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposed dormer and rear extension on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a semi-detached bungalow and the dormer window would introduce a new feature into the front roof slope. It would be set back from the eaves but its pitched roof would extend up to the height of the ridge of the main roof. Given that this is a semi-detached property, the dormer would be prominent and out of keeping with the style and appearance of the pair of bungalows. Dormer windows are not a common feature on the front of properties in the area thereby making this one particularly prominent and uncharacteristic. I therefore consider that this aspect of the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The rear extension would involve the demolition of an existing extension which due to the land levels is elevated above the level of the rear garden. Whilst the proposed extension would extend a short distance beyond the rear wall of the existing extension it would be noticeably wider. It would be set back from the shared boundary with the attached bungalow but would extend further out to the other side of the existing dwelling. This added width and the design of the roof would give the appearance of a poorly contrived addition to the rear of the house. It would fail to respect the form, scale or character of the existing bungalow.

Local Plan (2019)1 Policy D1 requires all new development to be of a high quality of design that responds to local character. Local Plan (2003)2 Policy G5 sets out design requirements for new development. The Council’s SPD3 also sets out design principles which seek to ensure that house extensions and alterations are appropriate to the character and appearance of the existing property and the existing street scene around the property. The SPD also advises more specifically on rear extensions and dormer windows. The National Planning Policy Framework4 and the National Design Guide5 also cites the importance of good design.

I find that the dormer window would introduce an element into the front elevation of the house that would be prominent and out of keeping with the design and character of the bungalow. It would therefore conflict with policies D1, G5 and the advice in the SPD. I appreciate that the main impact of the rear extension would be to the rear of the property but the appearance of the bungalow contributes to the overall character and appearance of the area. The scale and design of the rear extension would fail to respect or make a positive contribution to the existing property which in turn impacts on the area generally.

I have considered all matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposed dormer and rear extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and conflict with the policies referred to above. The appeal therefore fails.