Appeal 3334070

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The appeal property is a two-storey mid-terraced back-to-back dwelling. The terrace runs the length of the street, with the dwellings all built with the same design and materials and are mostly unaltered. This uniformity helps to provide an attractive streetscape with a strong a sense of coherence.

The proposed front dormer would be substantial in size and take up most of the roof slope, resulting in a top-heavy and excessively bulky appearance that would dominate the roof and disrupt the harmony of the terrace. Furthermore, the windows in the dormer would not align with the existing fenestration, which would unbalance the appearance of the dwelling.

Two properties in the street currently have front dormers, however these are both more modest in size and do not dominate their roof slopes. There are numerous front dormers of various designs and sizes in the wider area. Many are stated to be unauthorised although no enforcement action appears to have been taken. Nevertheless, these dormers in other streets are not visible from the appeal site and therefore have no bearing on the appeal building’s street scene. Consequently, they do not justify the proposal before me, which has been considered on its own merits.

The proposed dormer would be discordant with the host dwelling and the street scene and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy BT1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2023 which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that development respects or enhances the character and appearance of existing buildings are surroundings. The proposal would also fail to accord with the quality in design aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposal would create economic benefits during construction works. These would however be temporary and likely to be limited given the scale of the proposal. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would result in an increase in council tax. For these reasons I give limited weight to the economic benefits of the scheme.

I understand that opportunities to extend the property are constrained given the back-to-back nature of the dwelling. However, it has not been demonstrated that the property could not be extended in a way that does not cause the harm identified.

I note that neighbouring residents and the Council have not objected with regards to the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring properties. This would however amount to a lack of harm and thus be neutral.

The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.