Appeal 3285332

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit the proposed dormer was substantially complete, and had been broadly built in accordance with the submitted plans. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the terrace of which it forms part; and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.

The appeal site is located on the eastern edge of the Conservation Area which itself is centred along [address] and comprises well conserved town houses. The terrace of which the appeal site forms part is more modest in its architecture, nonetheless it provides a reasonable contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area notwithstanding that a number of dwellings have been altered and extended over time.

I note the example of the tile-clad, flat roof box dormer to the rear of [address] next door, and whilst it is not normally for me to comment on the appropriateness of this or otherwise, in this case I consider that “two wrongs don’t make a right”. [name] acknowledge that the proposed dormer extension has been clad in slate to match the re-clad front roof slope, nonetheless it protrudes quite significantly above the ridgeline of the two-storey rear outrigger shared with [address]; and which appears as an incongruous addition to the host dwelling, also partially visible from the north-east on [address].

The Council’s Campbell Road Conservation Area Guidelines (CAG) stipulate that dormer windows will generally be discouraged on front, side or other elevations which currently do not have them, where these are visible from the public highway. [name] accept that the majority of the views of the proposed development are from the rear, nonetheless I cannot agree that the proposal complies with the spirit of the CAG, particularly bearing in mind it is advised that roof extensions often lead to the loss of existing historic fabric such as pitched roofs. This view supports guideline (1) (d) (vi) of the CAG which stipulates that roof extensions will be discouraged where they would have an adverse visual effect on the existing building or townscape or where they would lead to the loss of original historic roofs or their features. Furthermore it goes on to state that where roof extensions are permitted, they should match existing properties in respect of design, materials, bulk or size.

Therefore notwithstanding the presence of the roof extension next door, by granting planning permission for the appeal proposal it would give rise to further incremental erosion of the terrace and overall I consider that the proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

[name] consider that the proposal would give rise to less than substantial harm to a Designated Heritage Asset and notwithstanding the recent improvements to the dwelling in terms of the re-slated front roof slope and re-pointed brickwork, I consider that the public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm.

In conclusion, I consider that the proposal represents an incongruous and unduly top-heavy feature that has an overbearing impact on the existing roof, fails to relate sympathetically to the existing dwelling and the terrace of which it forms part and harms the Conservation Area. In addition to the conflict with the [name] also find the proposal conflicts with Policy PSC23 of the Portsmouth Plan (2012) which requires all new development to be well designed and respect the character of the City through, amongst other things, excellent architectural quality to existing buildings whilst ensuring that development relates well to the history of Portsmouth, particularly the City’s Conservation Areas, through the protection and enhancement of the City’s historic townscape.

Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.