Appeal 3344813

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal dwelling is a semi-detached dwelling of which the pairs are located extremely close together so have the appearance of terraced properties with terraced proportions eg narrow frontages. The properties on the opposite side of the highway are terraced in nature. All nearby properties are of similar materials of construction, but some have render or paint applied to front elevations. These dwellings have a regular rhythm with consistent roof planes and an absence of front dormers. The buildings have traditional character in terms of design.

The appeal scheme would introduce a front dormer, as part of a loft conversion, across the roof frontage of No 46. In the absence of any other front dormers on the adjoining house or the blocks either side of the host dwelling, it would be an alien feature that would disrupt the presently unchanged roof profiles of the appeal property and the buildings that adjoin it. Whilst there are no buildings to the front of the appeal property and the dormer would remain fractionally lower than the overall roof height, the front dormer would nonetheless appear incongruous within the street scheme and detract from the simple vernacular of these traditional properties.

The proposed dormer would extend across a large percentage of the roof slope. Coupled with the flat roof design, it would result in a large box like structure that would add significant bulk and massing to the house. It would fail to reflect the form and size of the original dwelling and represent a visually obtrusive addition to the host property, and it would disrupt the roof profile of the house to the detriment of the street scene.

The appellant has drawn my attention to another property within the vicinity, located on a nearby street that also has front dormer windows. I observed the front dormer windows to this property, but this relates to a building of a different type and character. It is not visible from the appeal property and in an area with a different character and appearance, and therefore not directly comparable with the proposal. Accordingly, this example has not altered my overall decision.

I find that the appeal proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area and would therefore conflict with policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2023) and policy NPP6 of the Gainsborough Neighbourhood Plan, when taken as a whole, amongst other matters, expect development to be appropriate for its context and be of high-quality design. I also find conflict with the design guidance as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.