Appeal 3315727

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The appeal site is in a residential area comprised, in the main, of brick built, true bungalows with double pitched, unbroken roofs of varying ridge heights in a landscaped setting and with rear amenity spaces. These features add positively and distinctively to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property forms part of an L-shaped block of terraced dwellings and lies within the midst of them. The terrace retains intact the unity of its original design with unbroken double pitched roofs of varying ridge heights and few, if any, significant alterations to its external appearance.

The proposed development is to raise the ridge height of the property and to construct a flat roofed rear dormer window along virtually the whole of its length and with a height to the ridge of the property. Because of the existing variations to the ridge heights within the housing block, the proposal to raise the ridge height by some 0.3 metres, with the consequent slight change to the angle of the roof plane, would not in itself, significantly and adversely affect the overall character and appearance of the block as a whole.. Appeal Ref: APP/W0530/D/23/3315727

However, the proposed rear dormer window, by its design, size and bulk, would create a dominating and top-heavy addition to the host property, adversely affecting the existing character and appearance of the terrace as a whole.

Moreover, it would be visible from the car park to the Hauxton primary school, and while this is not strictly from a public viewpoint, it is nevertheless an area frequented by the public. However, even if it would not be visible from the public domain, this would not be a reason to permit poor design.

The appellant has referred me to several other planning approvals relating to dormer windows and the raising of roof lines1. I acknowledge that consistency of decision-making is an important part of the planning system. However, the submitted cases refer to extensions where the character and appearance of the dwellings and the areas within which they are located differ from the current appeal proposal. Some relate to detached dwellings, often of varying designs within their settings, while others were approved in the light of other such dormer windows occurring in the immediate area. Others were allowed because of previously approved dormer windows, while the reasons for other approvals are not stated.

It is not apparent that the quoted examples relate to a comparable L-shaped terrace of bungalows with a common design. In any event, I have determined the appeal on its individual planning merits.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local plan 2018 or with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021, both of which require development to be of good design in sympathy with the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.