Appeal 3301181

The appeal is dismissed.

From my site visit I saw that a dormer window has already been constructed at the appeal site. The overall proportions appear to accord with those shown on the plans. However, amendments are also proposed to the detailed design so I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area, including the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park.

[site address] is a large semi-detached house constructed from stone with a steeply sloping red tile roof. The neighbouring properties in the area are characterised by a mix of housing, in a variety of styles with gently sloping roofs, in a rural setting. While [site address] does not conform to the traditional Yorkshire Dales vernacular, the distinctive steeply sloping roof makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and the scenic beauty of the National Park.

The principle of a dormer in this location is not in dispute. However, unlike the examples given of other nearby dormers within the National Park which are on shallow sloping roofs, or in less rural settings, this dormer is positioned on a steeply sloping roof. The almost flat roof of the dormer has a horizontal emphasis and boxy appearance. The introduction of this feature into the steeply pitched roof is incongruous and not in keeping with one of the main features of the original dwelling.

The removal of the existing cladding and replacement with matching red tiles, and the proposed changes to the fenestration would, to some degree, help to improve the appearance of the dormer. I have noted above that the appeal site is not typical of the Dales traditional vernacular, however, the addition to the roofscape would still remain incongruous with the dwelling. As such, it would draw the eye, detracting from the character and appearance of the area and the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park.

I understand that permission has previously been granted for a dormer extension to the dwelling. However, the size and location of that dormer was different. The constructed dormer remains positioned away from both the ridge and eaves. However, the dormer, as constructed, is deeper than that previously given permission, which causes the outward face to be taller and results in an almost flat roof. From my site visit I saw that, in contrast to the permitted scheme, the depth and height of the dormer creates a bulky, dominant addition to the original roofscape of the distinctive dwelling. As such, the current development has a greater presence than the previous permission.

The appellant indicates that the previously approved dormer would not have been able to accommodate a fully opening window which is necessary to provide a means of escape from the top storey accommodation. However, there is no particular evidence before me to confirm whether this is the case, and I note the spacings above and below the current windows in the dormer front. As such, it has not been shown that there are not alternatives that may more closely reflect the character of the existing dwelling.

I note that the appeal site is some distance from the B6160 and [address] and the appellant’s assertion that while it is visible it is not prominent. From my site visit I saw that owing to the gradient of the road the site is not visible driving along [address]. However, due to the flat topography of the agricultural land and rugby fields to the rear of [site address] the dormer is visible from the corner of [address] and from the B6160. The dormer is visible from the B6160 end of the track known as ’[address]’, although views of the property are reduced as you walk down the track, being obscured by existing properties. I note there is support from neighbours who have closer views of the development but that is of limited weight compared to the public interest of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given, the development causes harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park. This is in conflict with policies SP1, SP2 and SP4 of the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2015-2030) which amongst other things, seeks development that contributes positively to the built environment, conserves and enhances the natural beauty of the National Park and is of a design that is informed by and responds positively to the site so that it is sympathetic and complementary.

My above findings bring the development into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that have been shown to have sufficient weight to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.