Appeal 3318172

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear dormer at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/06687/FU, dated 1 October 2022.

I have not included the full description of development from the planning application form as it makes reference to the proposal being retrospective and to a previous planning application, and neither are in themselves acts of development. However, I was able to see on my site visit that the dormer has been constructed and therefore I have determined this appeal on the basis that it is a retrospective development.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.

The appeal dwelling is a modern terrace property located within a predominately residential area. Due to the size of the rear garden of the dwelling, the full impact of the dormer is not as readily noticeable from within the extents of the appeal property itself, but it is clearly visible from [address] whose properties run to the side and rear, and also from the gardens and windows of adjacent dwellings.

The dormer is of a size that makes it dominant in terms of the area of the rear roof plane of [site address] that it covers. However, it is of relevance that the dormer sits within the roofscape of the terrace formed by [address] and 2 and [address]. It is in this context that the dormer is primarily seen, particularly in longer range views taken from [address]. In such views it sits immediately to the right of the gable roof on No 1, which itself adds considerable bulk to the roofscape. The presence of this gable significantly reduces the visual impact that the appeal development has.

Furthermore, in views taken from [address], existing dwellings in the foreground are designed with large dormer style inserts present at first floor level. Whilst these are original features of those dwellings, when viewed in conjunction with the appeal development, they aid in better assimilating what has been built into the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Collectively, the circumstances relating to the roofscape of Nos 1, 2 and 4 and the design of the adjacent dwellings means that the appeal development has not had a harmful effect on the character and appearance of either the host dwelling or the area.

I note that planning permission was granted in 2020 for a smaller dormer than has been built, and that this was the subject of negotiations on its size resulting in a reduced scale of development that the Council found to be acceptable. I have also been made aware that permitted development rights have been removed on the wider estate, which restricts what can be undertaken to the roofs of the dwellings without planning permission. But, as I have found no harm to character and appearance from what has been built, these matters do not have a bearing on the outcome of the appeal.

For these reasons, I conclude that the development accords with Policy P10 of the [name] 2019 and [name] GP5 and BD6 of the Unitary Development Plan 2006, where they seek to protect character and appearance. There would also be no conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to achieving well-designed places. Whilst it is arguable that the size of the dormer goes beyond that envisaged by the guidance set out in the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (SPD), I have set out why in this instance this has not resulted in harm being caused to character and appearance. Accordingly, the aims of the SPD have not been compromised.

The materials used are appropriate and match those used on the host dwelling and adjoining dwellings. That being the case and because the development has already been undertaken, it is not necessary to impose any planning

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.