Appeal 3323747

The appeal is dismissed.

The development proposed is already in situ. Therefore, I have considered this appeal on the basis that planning permission is sought retrospectively.

The main issue is the effect of the dormer on the character and appearance of the area.

Ashdown is a detached two-storey dwelling and occupies a large plot on [address]. It sits amongst other residential properties on [address] and [address] which sits to the rear of the site. There are a mix of dwelling types in the vicinity of the appeal site. However, they mainly consist of traditional architecture and facing materials. Roof forms are generally pitched and largely devoid of bulky additions. The principal features of the appeal dwelling, including its slate covered pitched main roof, give it a distinctive traditional aesthetic which complement the quality of the built environment to this part of Weaverham.

Section 5 of the [name] and [address] Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings Supplementary Planning Document (2021) (SPD) provides guidance for roof extensions and confirms amongst other things that rear dormers that are subordinate to the roofscape and have a similar appearance to the existing roof material will be supported.

The considerable boxed form and off-centre position of the dormer detracts from the simple pitched form and symmetry of the host dwelling’s roof. This is emphasised by the unsympathetic cedar cladding facing material which does not assimilate well with the slate on the main roof slope. This is most evident in views from surrounding properties and the street, particularly on [address].

The appellant suggests that the cedar cladding will weather and grey and integrate with the existing roofing materials. In the alternative, they would accept a condition requiring that the cladding be painted. However, in either case, I am not persuaded that the texture or appearance of the cladding would acceptably blend with the main slate roof or the general high quality of the surrounding built environment.

I conclude, the dormer as proposed has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it conflicts with the high standard of design, character and high-quality material requirements of Policy ENV6 (High quality design and sustainable construction) of the [name] and Chester Local Plan Part One: [name] (2015) and Policies DM3 and DM21 (Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse) of the [name] and Chester Local Plan Part Two: [name] and [name] (2018). For the same reasons it also conflicts with the SPD and the requirements in the National Planning Policy Framework for developments to be of a good design and to add to the overall quality of the area.

I understand that there is an existing planning permission1 which includes a dormer of the same form and position within the roof slope. However, given that planning permission includes a condition specifically requiring that dormer be completed in materials of matching colour and texture to the roofing material of the existing dwelling, I do not find that fallback position comparable to the specific proposal before me.

The dormer as proposed has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The development therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.