Appeal 3290808

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the appeal proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Corporation Park Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property is a terraced dwelling, which is situated in the CA. As the appellant states, the focal point of the CA is Corporation Park, which is a public park of heritage value that was opened in 1857. Dwellings around the park (including those along [address]) vary in size and status, but they generally reflect the Victorian period in terms of their design features and materials.

Number [site address] faces Corporation Park, with the rear of the dwelling and the rest of the terrace backing onto a rear alleyway that also serves the rear of dwellings on [address]. The properties on [address] are not within the CA. Although the rear elevations of the properties along [address] are not specifically referred to in the Council’s Corporation Park Conservation Area Supplementary Planning Document, I noted at my site visit that the majority of the dwellings have retained their original rear roofscapes and gabled outriggers. These are clearly visible from the alleyway and I consider them to be a positive feature that contributes to the heritage significance of the area, notwithstanding the fact that they are at the rear.

The neighbouring property at number [address] has constructed a dormer at the rear. The planning application was refused by the Council and is the subject of a separate appeal (APP/M2372/D/22/3290809).

The proposed dormer at number 8 would occupy most of the width of the main rear roof and although it would slightly lower than the ridge and slightly above the eaves line of the dwelling, I consider that it would appear as an incongruous and dominant feature that would be at odds with the existing roofscape, because of its prominent position, scale and bulk. In my opinion, it would not appear as a subservient addition to the dwelling and it would be clearly visible from the alleyway at the rear of the terrace.

Decision makers must have regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. This is reflected in Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (The Framework) and in Policy 39 of the Council’s Local Plan Part 2 2015 – Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (LP2). In addition, Policy 11 of LP2 states (amongst other things) that all new development must demonstrate an understanding of the wider context and make a positive contribution to the local area. Furthermore, Policy CS17 of the Council’s adopted [name] 2011 states (amongst other things) that buildings and features, which are of local importance will be protected from inappropriate change or development.

I agree that conservation area status should not stifle development, but in this case, I consider that the appeal development fails to either preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Consequently, it conflicts with the Development Plan and with the Framework, as referred to above.

With regard to Section 16 of the NPPF, I consider that the harm to the character and appearance of the CA would be less than substantial. However, I am not persuaded that there are any public benefits arising from the proposal that would outweigh the harm that I have identified.

In reaching my decision, I have also taken into account the existence of other dormers in the vicinity of the appeal property. A number of these are on [address], which is not in the CA, therefore, different considerations apply.

I also noted existing dormers at numbers 30 and [address], which were previously granted planning permission by the Council. The Council states that these are less prominent. Notwithstanding, the majority of the rear roofscapes along [address] have not been altered or extended and the dormers at numbers 30 and 36 are not a common feature, nor do they make a positive contribution to the appearance of this part of the CA. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the existence of the other dormers should create a precedent for development that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the

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