Appeal 3302166

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.

[site address] is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling situated at the junction of [address] and [address]. It is located within a residential area which includes dwellings of a similar form and design. The proposed dormer would be situated on the roof slope of the flank elevation of the building which faces [address] and is intended to facilitate a loft conversion. The Council has not objected to the proposal on the grounds of its impact of residential amenity, although the proposed windows in the dormer would allow some overlooking of No.[address].

The proposed dormer would be situated in a prominent corner position where it would appear obtrusive because of its scale and flat roofed form. It would be uncharacteristic in the street scene because the immediate locality is generally lacking in roof dormers, especially side dormers. The appellant has advised that a dormer could be constructed on the rear elevation under permitted development rights. However, I disagree that such a rear dormer would necessarily still have a similar, if not greater impact than the appeal proposal on the host building and surrounding area.

I find that the proposed dormer to the side elevation of the property would have a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area. It would conflict with [name] policy CS6 which indicates that all development should be in scale taking into account the local context and character. It would fail to comply with Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan policy MD2 which, amongst other things, requires development to respond appropriately to the form and layout of existing development including scale. It would also conflict with the objective of achieving well designed places in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The appellant has referred to other examples of dormer windows which have been granted permission. These include a dormer at No.[address], [site address] . However, that dormer is situated on the front roof slope rather than in a prominent location at a side elevation. The dormer at No.[address] is at a side elevation, but the dwelling is not located at a corner position. For these reasons the cited developments do not justify granting permission for the appeal proposal. I have determined this appeal based upon the individual merits of the proposal and its particular site circumstances having regard to relevant development plan and national planning policies and all other material considerations.

The appeal proposal would allow expansion of the accommodation, provide employment during the construction phase, would not extend the footprint of the building, and would be designed and use materials to be thermally efficient. However, these claimed benefits would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area which I have identified. In view of this visual and environmental harm the proposal would not constitute sustainable development.

I have taken all other matters raised into account, including the lack of objection from any neighbours and the Parish Council. However, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.