Appeal 3353694

The appeal is dismissed.

A new National Planning Policy Framework was published in December 2024 (the Framework). This replaces the previous version of the Framework, published in December 2023. So far as the main issues are concerned, the 2024 Framework remains essentially unaltered relative to the December 2023 version. Therefore, it has not been necessary for me to seek comments from the main parties in respect of the 2024 Framework.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The host property is the middle house of a stone built, two-storey terrace of three dwellings, all with a commonly constructed unbroken, front pitched roof, set on the edge of a residential area of similarly built terraced houses. The terrace, of which the appeal property forms a part, is shorter in length than most of the other terraced blocks around it and this, together with its more peripheral location, affords it a slightly separate setting, even though there are common features such as the use of natural stone. What appears to be the use of natural stone roofing slabs for the terrace as distinct from natural blue slate upon the other terraces, adds to the difference. Overall, the front elevation of the terrace and the host property with its absence of dormers, creates a pleasing design symmetry.

On my site visit, I was able to note that there is an abundance of dormers to the rear roofs of terraced houses in the vicinity, noticeably to those dwellings directly facing the appeal property. There are examples of some dormers to front Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: APP/A4710/D/24/3353694 elevations and to which the appellant has referred, including that to No.[address], though these are the exception to the norm and the general absence of such front additions adds positively and distinctively to the character and appearance of both the particular terrace and those in the immediate area.

I acknowledge the presence of such existing front dormers in the decision making process, though this is tempered by the fact that the front elevation of the terrace of which the appeal property forms a part, remains free of such additions and which adds to its overall attractiveness and that of the area.

The proposal is to construct two separate dormers to the front of the host property, each with pitched roofs and with three windowpanes. Their cheeks would be clad in grey Upvc with tiling for the roofs. Window frames would be white Upvc.

I appreciate that the proposed dormers would not occupy the full extent of the roof space of the host property. Nonetheless, in addition to the adverse impact upon the currently unbroken roof to which I have referred, I consider that, by their individual sizes and widths including the provision of three windows, they would appear as being overly dominant in the terrace of properties, creating top-heavy and incongruous additions to the detriment of the character and appearance of the terrace and to the wider area.

The use of grey tiling for their cheeks would not necessarily be compatible with the main roof, though I appreciate that if I had felt able to allow the appeal, this is a matter which might have been resolved using a suitable condition.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with Policy BT1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2023 which requires high quality development which respects or enhances the character and appearance of existing buildings and surroundings, taking account of its local context and distinctiveness, and with chapter 12 of the Framework which seeks to achieve good design.

I appreciate that the proposed development would create work for builders and trades persons, though this would be likely to be of a limited duration. I also appreciate that it would provide additional space for current occupiers. However, such issues do not outweigh my conclusion upon the main issue.

There are no material planning considerations that indicate the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.