Appeal 3340074

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: ⚫ the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and ⚫ highway safety and the provision of parking.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey, mid-terrace property in a residential neighbourhood. Other houses are of similar age and design with pitched roofs and an absence of dormer windows. This is a prevailing characteristic of the area and positively contributes to the relatively unified appearance.

The proposed dormer window would be relatively large, with a flat roof. It would be in a prominent position, visible from the public highway. As there are no other dormer elements evident in the vicinity, in my view care needs to be taken introducing such features into this part of the estate.

With this in mind, I consider that the size of the scheme would appear dominant in the context of the appeal property. Moreover, due to its elevated and exposed position this addition would be a wholly alien and incongruous element in the street scene, and would be out of keeping with the prevailing unbroken roof forms in the locale. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would conflict with Policies PMD2 and CSTP22 of the [name] and Policies for Management of Development Document 2015 (CS), and the [name], [name] & Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2017). Together these require development to respond to and respect the character of the area, to provide a high quality of design, and ensure the form and scale of extensions is appropriate to the original dwelling and the surrounding development pattern.

In the estate parking is provided either off-street on driveways or in communal areas. At my site visit on a Thursday morning I noticed that there are no restrictions on roads within the locality. There was available kerbside parking space on and in the immediate proximity to the site. [name] accept this is only a snap shot in time, it is an indication that on street parking is not difficult to achieve at certain times of day.

The proposal would create a small 3-bedroom property. It would be unlikely to generate significant levels of traffic requiring on-street parking above and beyond that which already occurs. In the absence of a compelling indication of a local issue I do not consider that the proposal would result in a material shortage in parking provision in this location. Nor has it been demonstrated that even if there was a material deficiency it would be bound to have a harmful effect on highway safety.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be harmful to highway safety or parking provision, and accordingly there would be no conflict with Policies PMD2 and PMD8 of the CS.

Whilst there would be no detrimental impact on highway safety and parking provision, the development would be harmful on character and appearance grounds. The appeal therefore fails.