Appeal 3313999

The appeal is dismissed.

I use the Council’s description of development which is more concise than the application or appeal forms.

The hip to gable extensions have been completed by means of ‘permitted development’ and other alterations, for example to windows, have been undertaken on this property. The proposals I am now considering are effectively the proposed new front and rear dormers.

The main issues are the effect of the development on a) the character and appearance of the host property and the locality and b) on living conditions for neighbours.

The appeal property is a modernised detached bungalow on a corner plot partly below road level. It lies within estate development which has mainly bungalows predominating albeit this site has two storey homes to the east. The locality is of established residential character with generally subtle streetscenes and an overall pleasing appearance from the combination of, usually low key, homes and their gardens. The proposal I am considering is for a replacement front dormer on the ‘front’ facing [address] and a box dormer running along most of the ‘rear’ roof elevation which lies to the north and is alongside the side flank of [address].

The front dormer would have a pitched roof and full front glazing in four vertical panes. It is of such a scale that it would be wildly disproportionate to what lies below in terms of the front elevation and its fenestration and as a projection in the pitched roof itself. The dormer would be unduly bulky, look alien and awkward in the streetscene, and generally represent poor design with little regard to the host property or the nature of its surrounds. There would be no suitable degree of subtlety.

The rear dormer regrettably raises similar issues in my mind to the front albeit this is not so markedly out of scale and does have an advantage of ground levels and viewpoints working in its favour. However, it would take up too much of the roof pitch and this is primarily because of its undue proximity to the eastern gable end. In simple terms the dormer would be too long. The overall bulk would thus be excessive and would create a cumbersome top-heavy roof structure which again would not represent good design and would look ill-at-ease in the generally visually polite streetscene.

Given the foregoing, I conclude that there would be conflict with Policy DM28 of the Lewes District Local Plan (LP). This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to secure development which would be sympathetic in form and scale to an existing building, respects the character of the locality, and generally be of good design in a style which accords with the locality and streetscene appearance.

The planned rear dormer would have an unfortunate relationship to a generally private part of the rear garden of the dwelling to the north ([address]). Even with vegetation there would be scope for downward, slightly diagonal, looking from the closest proposed bedroom window at the western end which would be intrusive and unsettling. I note the Appellant’s offer to obscure glaze this window, and presumably limit openings, but even then there would be a regrettable perception of overlooking and discomfort this would bring. This bedroom window would simply be too close to a key part of the neighbouring property. 10.LP Policy DM28 is also pertinent under this issue as it seeks to safeguard residential amenity enjoyed from within existing homes and gardens. I conclude that the appeal proposal would run contrary to this policy.