Appeal 3312873

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was amended through the submission of revised plans, to which I have had regard.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and upon the living conditions of adjoining occupiers with regard to privacy.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow with a rectangular footprint and reasonably narrow front elevation. It occupies a wedge-shaped plot on the outside of a bend where [address] turns through almost ninety degrees. The area is entirely residential in character comprising a mix of property types and sizes in a variety of styles. The proposal would include extending the living accommodation into the roof space at first-floor level by raising the ridge height by around 1m and changing its hipped roof form to front and rear facing gables with a steeper pitch. It is also proposed to add a deeply recessed gabled extension to one side, projecting towards the neighbouring property at No 12, with a dormer addition to the side elevation and which would wrap around the front roof slope of the side extension.

As recognised by the Council, there are a number of properties in the vicinity which feature gabled roof forms and despite the increased height, the overall scale of the building would remain modest and proportionate, with the side addition appearing as a well-integrated and subservient adjunct. However, I share the Council’s concern that the proposed dormer, with its unorthodox wrap-around form and overall size, would appear as a dominant and unsympathetic feature that would be poorly integrated with the style and character of the remodelled dwelling. Its incongruous and bulky form would be further exaggerated by the dwelling’s visual prominence within the street scene where the dormer, although not protruding, would be open to clear sight in the vista looking east along [address].

I have noted the numerous examples where properties within the local area have been extensively modified and it is clear that contemporary styled extensions and alterations have been assimilated. However, in my assessment the nature of the dormer proposed at No 14 would reflect a poorly conceived addition that would be visually unappealing and thereby harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene. By failing to achieve a high quality of design there would be conflict with Policy ENV3 of the Local Plan 2016 - 2036 Part 1: Planning Strategy for the New Forest District outside the New Forest National Park ([name] 1).

The proposal would include a bedroom window in the apex of the new, rear facing gable. The property has a fairly shallow rear garden with its rear boundary adjoining the side boundary of rear gardens to maisonettes at Nos 60-66 (even) [address].

The rear gardens of the maisonettes are very long and from the [name] the amenity space provision appears to be split four ways, with two portions presumably for two of the properties set very deep and a significant distance removed from the actual residences. However the arrangement works, it is clear to me that there is already a degree of mutual overlooking of these garden spaces, either from the existing first-floor maisonettes themselves, or from other surrounding properties. In my opinion the additional window at No 14 would have no significant impact upon existing levels of privacy within the adjoining garden area and as such I can detect no harm to the living conditions of any adjoining occupiers. There would therefore be no conflict with [name] 1 Policy ENV3 in this regard.

For the reasons given, notwithstanding my findings in relation to the second main issue, I find that due to the size, appearance and position of the dormer window, the proposal overall would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. I appreciate the appellant’s need to stay in the vicinity due to the nature of their work, and desire to extend their property to accommodate their family. I also note that there were no objections to the proposal. However, these factors do not justify a development that would be visually harmful and which conflicts with development plan policy. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.