Appeal 3296082

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene within which it sits along with its effect on the living conditions of the occupier(s) of No. [address] with particular regard to access to natural light.

The appeal relates to a traditional bungalow with a shallow roof pitch. It is read as part of a group of bungalows immediately to the west which are of a broadly similar scale and height, taking into account the rising ground level of the highway. A dormer bungalow with a noticeably taller ridge height sits immediately to the east.

The proposal seeks to increase the ridge height and roof pitch of the appeal dwelling in order to accommodate rooms in the roof. They would be served by three dormers and two rooflights to the front elevation and one long mono-pitched dormer and two rooflights to the rear elevation. The introduction of a feature gable-fronted porch is also proposed to the front elevation.

The proposed roof alterations would radically alter the scale and appearance of the appeal dwelling. I am mindful that the dwelling to the east, No. [address], is noticeably taller with a much steeper roof pitch and it is of a different appearance to the group of bungalows to the west. However, according to the Appellants, the enlarged appeal dwelling would be some 900mm taller than the dwelling at No. 45. As a result, rather than transitioning between the lower bungalows and the taller dwelling, it would appear oversized, disjointed and a jarring feature within the street scene.

For this reason, I find that the proposed enlargement would be disproportionate and would result in the appeal dwelling appearing incongruous within the street scene. In such terms, the proposal conflicts with policy 10 of the Council’s adopted [name] and policy LPD43 of the Council’s adopted Local Planning Document (LPD), which promote high quality design that is in keeping with surrounding character.

The appeal dwelling sits directly on the boundary shared with No. [address], with only the width of the driveway of this neighbouring dwelling separating the side elevations of the two properties. The side elevation of No. 41 faces east and it has two windows. One serves a bathroom and the other provides the only source of light to the kitchen. Given the aspect and the relationship to the appeal dwelling, the side elevation of No. 41 will already be cast in some shadow at certain times of the day. The increase in the ridge height and roof pitch proposed would increase the overall bulk and massing of the side elevation of the appeal dwelling. Even accounting for the presence of a modest shed at No. [address] to the kitchen window, the effect would cast more shadow. This would further reduce the levels of natural light available to the side elevation of No. 41 and its kitchen at certain times of the day, which is unacceptable.

In light of the above, I consider that the proposal would unacceptably reduce the levels of natural light available to the occupier(s) of No. [address]. In such terms, it conflicts with policies LPD32 and LPD43 of the LPD, which seek to safeguard appropriate levels of residential amenity for neighbours.

The Appellants refer to larger properties at Nos. 17A and [address]. However, I do not know the precise planning circumstances behind these examples. In any event, I have considered the proposal before me on its merits and against the context of the particular section of the street scene within which the appeal dwelling sits.

The Appellants also assert that the proposal amounts to sustainable development. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. I have explained why the proposal does not amount to good design and therefore it does not amount to sustainable development in the widest sense of the definition provided by the Framework.

I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene within which it sits and it would also unduly harm the living conditions of the occupier(s) of No. [address]. The arguments advanced by the Appellants do not outweigh the harm and policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR