Appeal 3336537

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of a rear dormer at [site address] , Southampton [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 23/01280/FUL dated 28 September 2023, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan dated 28/09/2023; Block Plan dated 04/08/2020; and Proposed plans and elevations [name].

The works associated with the appeal proposal have taken place. Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) makes allowance for the submission of a planning application for development which has been carried out before the date of the application.

I have revised the description of the development as set out on the application form, and amended on the decision notice and the appeal form, to better reflect the proposal before me, including removing the wording retrospective and reference to an earlier planning application at the appeal site.

Following the decision by the Council and before the submission of the appeal by the appellants the revised National Planning Policy Framework December 2023 (the Framework) was published. There are no substantive changes relevant to the appeal before me, and therefore the Council, the appellants and other interested parties would not be prejudiced by my consideration of the 2023 version of the Framework.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property, No. [site address] is situated towards the end of a cul-de-sac which includes a range of post war two storey detached dwellings. The properties vary in their design detailing, and have been subject to alterations over time, but nonetheless there is an overall pleasant suburban style.

The rear elevation and back garden area of No. 10 is well screened from public vantage points as it backs onto the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. From my site visit, I had difficulty finding a location from which I could see the rear roof slope of No. 10. It seemed to me that it would only be possible to view the dormer window from adjacent private gardens, whereby other rear extensions and adaptions are also clearly evident, or from brief glimpses from [address] to the west and [address] to the south, whereby the roof slope is viewed behind existing two-storey dwellings in the foreground. Further, views from [address] are also restricted via an intervening tree belt which I understand is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (ref T2- 041). I am also aware of a further Tree Preservation Order (ref T2-657) on a beech tree in the rear garden of No.10, which provides further screening.

It has been made apparent to me from both the appellants and the Council that No. 10 obtained conditional planning permission for a ‘Loft conversion with rear dormer’ through Decision Notice 20/01038/FUL on 29 September 2020. The decision included conditions requiring accordance with the approved plans and the material specification included in the application submissions.

The proposal before me relates to an almost identical submission to the 2020 approval above, with the key exception being a change in the external cladding to the dormer from the approved hanging tiles (which would have reflected what is on the main roof of No.10) to a grey manufactured plank cladding. Bearing in mind the 2020 decision, the Council do not object to the dormer window itself, but the materials as proposed.

From all that I observed during my site visit, whilst I accept that tile hanging to match the existing roof finish would be desirable, I do not have any particular objection to the material finish now proposed on what is a well-hidden rear roof slope, and acknowledging that the proposed cladding is of a recessive style finish and is horizontally laid. To my mind, the works undertaken have been well executed and have assimilated well into their context.

Further, I also observed other examples of comparable material finishes on roof slopes in the area, this included a similar cladding material to the appeal proposal on a recently constructed rear dormer window at the property [address], which backs onto No.10’s rear garden.

Therefore, for the above reasons, the proposal would accord with Policies SDP1, SDP7 and SDP 9 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review – [name] 2nd Revision (2015) and Policy CS 13 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2015). [name], amongst other matters, require development to respect the scale, massing, use of materials and proportions of their surroundings, and integrate into the local community. The proposal would also accord with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023, which, amongst other matters, requires development to be sympathetic to the surrounding built environment.

A time commencement condition is unnecessary in this case as the application is for retrospective permission. However, I have attached a condition requiring accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and to provide certainty.

For the reasons given above, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.