Appeal 3289066

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling within an estate style residential area wherein houses that are similar in age and style predominate. No [address] of dwellings that address one side of [address], which are largely unaltered externally at roof level. Although some properties in the local area have been extended, there is nevertheless, a broad consistency to the character and appearance of existing dwellings, and a general uniformity to their roofscape, which is locally distinctive.

The proposed dormer extension would have a flat roof and extend across the width of most of the front roof slope. It would be placed just below the ridge line and set in from the sides of the host roof. Even so, the considerable scale and bulk of the new dormer extension would cause it to visually dominate the front roof slope of the appeal dwelling.

When seen from [address], the proposal would be a conspicuous feature given its scale and elevated position. From numerous vantage points along this highway, the appeal scheme would draw the eye as a large box like addition. As the only obvious example of such development along this section of [address], the proposal would be a discordant element. As such, it would disrupt the rhythm between the houses in the same street scene that largely retain their original roofs. In reaching this conclusion, I note that the proposed external materials would match those that were recently approved by the Council in relation to the main house.

I saw a small number of properties with higher level extensions with one example of a dwelling with a side dormer close to the junction between [address] and [address]. As none of these cases were comparable with the size, mass and position of the proposal nor its prominence in the street scene they do not weigh in support of the appellant’s case.

Therefore, I conclude on the main issue that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policy D1 of the Melton Borough Local Plan 2011-2036. This policy seeks to ensure that all new development achieves high quality design that is sympathetic to the character of the area. It is also at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that developments should add to the overall qualities of the area and be sympathetic to local character.

Once in place, the dormer would offer an attractive open outlook across the golf course on the opposite side of [address] to the site. No other properties would be significantly overlooked from the new dormer window. However, these matters do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.