Appeal 3298233

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The site is located within a suburban residential area featuring dwellings of differing appearance and scale. Properties on the appeal site side of the road are generally two storey, although some are constructed above lower ground floor area’s due to the steep topography. On the opposite side of the road, dwellings generally have a single storey roadside appearance, allowing views across their roofs. This differing scale and appearance of dwellings contributes to the areas overall character.

Whilst there are groups of properties of similar designs, I note from my site visit that several alterations or extensions appear to have taken place to surrounding dwellings. These alterations have introduced a variety of design elements to the street scene including hipped and pitch roof extensions and front facing box dormer windows.

The existing front facing box dormer windows on nearby dwellings, including 91, 99 and [address], are prominent in the street scene. However, those dormer windows are all situated on a protruding roof slope and respect the proportions of the host dwelling. As such, they do not dominate the entire roof lines of the host dwellings and visually assimilate acceptably into the street scene.

The proposal would be a large addition to the roof of the appeal dwelling, and unlike dormer windows in nearby dwellings, would be sited higher up the roof plane and span the majority of the roof. This would make it appear less subordinate to the host property than other existing dormers in the locality and more prominent from the surrounding area. Whilst a part of the roof plane would be retained, notably by being set down below the ridge, the lower part of the roof and the flanks, by virtue of the position and size, the dormer would be a visually dominant addition to the roof. Furthermore, the proposed fenestration arrangement, due to being out of proportion to the existing windows below, exacerbates the overall incongruous appearance of the dormer window.

The Plymouth and South West Devon Supplementary Planning Document (2020) (SPD) provides a series of principles to be applied to the assessment of new dormer windows. The overarching aim of this guidance is to ensure that dormer windows do not dominate the original building and respect the proportions and features of the host property and context of the street scene.

I find that the proposal would not accord with the guidance provided within the SPD. Instead, the width pf the proposed dormer, combined with its position on the roof slope, would make it a dominant feature that would appear out of proportion. Although views of the side are partially obscured by the neighbouring dwelling, the dormer would nevertheless also be highly visible from elsewhere in [address] where its overall bulk would be apparent.

[name] have identified that existing dormer windows form a part of the character of the immediate area, those features assimilate acceptably in terms of their appearance and do not, based on what I have seen, read as incongruous, harmful features. However, for the above reasons, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy DEV20 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034 which seeks to ensure that development achieves good standards of design which contributes positively to the townscape, protecting and improving the quality of the environment. The proposal would also be inconsistent with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to achieving well-designed places and the guidance in the National Design Guide 2019 in relation to components for good design, more particularly appearance and identity.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. No material considerations have been shown to have sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.