Appeal 3286204

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of extension to dormer at [site address] , [name], Bath, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/03958/FUL, dated 22 August 2021, and the plans submitted with it, all received by the Council on 23 August 2021: Location Plan, Block Plan, Existing and Proposed First Floor Plan, Existing and Proposed Ground Floor Plan, Existing and [name], Existing and [name], Existing and [name], Existing and [name], and Existing and [name]/Roof Plan.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the application form. However, I have used the description of the development from the Council’s decision notice in my formal decision above as I consider this to be more precise.

At the time of my site visit, I saw that the development of the dormer was substantially complete. I also note that the application has been submitted retrospectively. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling situated in a predominately residential area. The area consists of similar semi-detached properties, a number of which have undergone extensions and alterations. As a result, there is some variety in the streetscene.

A smaller dormer window was granted planning permission in 2020 under a planning application involving the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of property, a two-storey extension to side of property and a loft conversion. Therefore, No. [site address] has recently been substantially enlarged.

The larger dormer window which has been constructed at No.115 is seen in the context of the extended property. It is considered that alongside the recent extensions, the development is a proportionate addition to the host property. The dormer is set in from the eaves of the property and the roof of the recent side extension is still legible. These design details allow the development to be read as a subservient addition to the host property.

The doors, windows, and the roof lantern of No.115 are all black framed. The use of black UPVC cladding on the dormer ties in with the more modern finish of the recent extensions and alterations of the appeal property and is appropriate to the character and appearance of No.115.

Glimpses of the rear dormer can be seen from the highway to the front. However, as I have found the development to be an appropriate addition to the host property, any such views are not harmful to the wider character and appearance of the streetscene.

Therefore, in view of the above, I conclude that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the area. The development is in accordance with Policy CP6 of the Bath and [name] (adopted 2014) which promotes high quality design and Policies D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5 of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan (adopted

which together seek to ensure development is respectful to local character and distinctiveness. The development is also in accordance with the principles within Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) which seek good design sympathetic to the local area.

I note that the site lies within the Bath World Heritage Site (WHS). However, given my findings above, I agree with the Council that the scheme does not result in harm to the values of the WHS.

In their appeal questionnaire, the Council has suggested conditions be applied to ensure that the development is carried out within three years, to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and for materials to match the existing property. However, given that the development has already occurred and materials, as stated above, are suitable, I have allowed the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal should be allowed.