Appeal 3293118

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of development as set out above has been taken from the Notice of Decision. This represents an evolution of the original description of development from the application form but has been subsequently accepted by the parties. I am satisfied that this version provides a more accurate description of the development.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and [address].

[address] is a quiet spacious cul-de-sac comprising detached bungalows and houses of a similar age and style, which have remained largely unchanged, with any alterations limited in their visibility. The properties within [address] are neither uniform in size nor scale, however they share a similar material pallet of brown and red brick, brown hung tiles and roofing, cream coloured render, and mostly brown doors and window frames.

No [site address] is a detached property which stands in a prominent location when entering the cul-de-sac. The proposed dormer would be positioned centrally between the two gabled pitched roofs and would appear as a substantial addition to the property in this location. [name] acknowledge that the increase in space is relatively small compared to the scale of the accommodation in the main house, the position and prominence of the proposed large dormer, as well as the significant expanse of glazing at roof level, would sit at odds with the design of the main dwelling, and would appear as an incongruous addition resulting in a negative impact on the street scene.

Other dormers can be seen within [address], however these appear to be original features. Nevertheless, the other examples of dormers are much smaller in scale and use materials that are in keeping with the original materials. I acknowledge that similar dormers can also be seen in many other locations in the wider area. However, I must consider the individual circumstances of each appeal, and in this instance, the addition of a modern dormer would cause harm to the otherwise largely unaltered cul-de-sac.

Accordingly, the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of [address], and the host dwelling, and would therefore conflict with point 2 of Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 (2016) (Local Plan), which seeks to ensure that the scale, massing, fenestration and materials of developments relates well to their context.

The appellants have highlighted a building near to the station which has recently been constructed. While it is acknowledged that the proposed dormer has taken design cues from the new building, it is not directly comparable as it is in a different location and is not seen within the same context. Furthermore, the new building has been designed as a coherent whole, rather than incorporating additions to an existing building, which is the case with the appeal property.

[name] acknowledge the appellants’ desire to enjoy the surrounding views from the proposed dormer extension, this is not a planning consideration and would not weigh in support of the proposal. I have therefore not attached any significant weight to this matter.

No objections were raised from either the neighbours or the parish council. Notwithstanding, this does not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the quality, character and appearance of the area through allowing the proposed development.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed