Appeal 3307847

The appeal is dismissed.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a modest sized semi-detached bungalow which is part of a group of 4 bungalows located within a primarily residential area comprising mainly 2-storey dwellings. From what was observed, the dwellings along neighbouring roads generally possess simple gable roof forms with no dormer windows within their front roofslopes. At ground floor level some of these dwellings possess bay windows.

The proposed development includes the erection of 2 dormer extensions with gable roofs within the property’s front roofslope and the replacement of a bow window by a bay window. The proposed dormers are seeking to retain an appropriate head height within the roofspace because of the alterations required to construct an extension within the rear roofslope. The proposed dormers would be sited below the ridge, above the eaves and away from the edges of the roof.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Household Development includes guidance that front dormers would not usually be permitted unless they are a prevailing feature of the house style and the character of the local area. In the case of the appeal scheme, the proposed front dormers would be an incongruous form of development in a location where the surrounding dwellings do not have the same type of extensions within their front roofslopes.

Whether assessed individually or cumulatively, the alterations proposed would not respect the simple form, appearance and character of the existing bungalow when viewed within the streetscene. Further, although the symmetry of this pair of semi-detached bungalows has already been disrupted by the property’s projecting front porch, the erection of the proposed dormers and bay window would materially unbalance the appearance of this pair of modest sized semi-detached dwellings.

Reference is made by the appellant to the potential for an upward extension of the property which could be erected as permitted development. No specific proposals have been provided to enable a comparison to be made between the potential permitted development and the appeal scheme. Limited weight is, therefore, given to this potential fallback position in the determination of this appeal.

The appellant has requested that consideration be given to a split appeal decision but the approach is inappropriate in this case because of the identified individual and cumulative harm.

Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed because the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and, as such, it would conflict with Policy LPD04 of the [site address] Borough Local Plan whereby household alterations and extensions should respect and/or enhance the appearance and character of the existing dwelling.