Appeal 3358052

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site comprises a small bungalow located on the end of a row of two storey terraced dwellings. The bungalow has been altered and extended by virtue of roof alterations including front and rear dormers, front extension and partially implemented side extension.

Planning permission was granted in September 20231 for various extensions and alterations, including a front dormer window, subject to conditions. These include condition No 2 which requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and condition No 4, which requires the front dormer that has 1 LPA ref. 23/1095/RSP been constructed within the front roof slope to be physically altered in accordance with the submitted drawing. The appellant wishes to vary condition 2 of that permission to enable the substitution of drawings and to remove condition 4 so that the front dormer can be retained in its current form. The Council’s objection is on design grounds.

Therefore, the main issue is the effect of varying / removal of the conditions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is in an area mainly characterised by two storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings of a similar original design and appearance. The appeal dwelling is of a different character and appearance, originally comprising a bungalow that has been subsequently extended as described above.

The design criteria set out in Appendix 2 of the Council’s Development Management Policies Document (2013) (DMPD) advises that dormer windows should always be subordinate to the main roof and that they should be set below the existing ridge level, set in from either end of the roof and set back from the plane of the front or rear wall. It also states that the roof form should respect the character of the house if possible and advises that front dormers may not always be appropriate in the street scene.

The existing dormer is a dominant feature of the front roof slope, with a height equivalent to that of the ridge level of the host dwelling. It is only set up from the eaves by about 0.2m such that it almost meets the flat roof of the front extension to the dwelling. The dormer has a width of around 2.6m and considerable depth, protruding significantly forward of the front roof slope. Moreover, the design of the dormer with a front gable also accentuates its visual prominence and its failure to respond positively to the character of the existing dwelling and the sloping roof plane on which it is sited. Overall, the scale and proportions of the dormer are disproportionate to the modest roof slope on which it sits and consequently, it is not subordinate in appearance to the host dwelling. Instead, the combination of the design of the dormer with its prominent gable end, together with its overall height, width, depth and positioning on the roof slope, has resulted in an unduly prominent and incongruous form of development that is harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The appeal property occupies a prominent corner location on the eastern side of [address] at its junction with [name]. The front dormer is clearly visible in the street scene in both near and more distanced views, where it appears at odds with and harmful to the prevailing character and appearance of the area as a result of its size and inappropriate design.

The appellant has highlighted the presence of dormer windows of various designs in the local area, including in nearby Carpenters Park. However, none of the examples provided appear to be directly comparable to the design and appearance of the appeal proposal which I am required to determine on its own merits. The appellant has also referred to approved extensions at [address], however these are also of a different design and appearance to the extensions at the appeal site. I therefore place limited weight on these examples.

The planning permission granted in September 2023 allowed for the retention of a front dormer window, subject to the alterations as detailed in approved plan no 65HD/P02 A, as referenced in condition 2 and in condition 4. These alterations included a reduction in the width, height and depth of the dormer, allowing it to be positioned more appropriately within the roof slope of the dwelling, with a set back from the ridge of about 0.3m and sitting around 0.3m up from the eaves. The approved plan also detailed the replacement of the gable end of the dormer with a hipped end which would be more in keeping with the existing sloping roof form of the host dwelling and would reduce its visual prominence. The retention of the dormer in its current form would continue to have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area and I therefore conclude that conditions 2 and 4 of that permission are reasonable and necessary.

The Council’s concerns are in relation to the design of the dormer window and its effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Accordingly, the conditions are relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted. Moreover, the conditions are precise, as the approved plan referred to in conditions 2 and 4 clearly shows the alterations that are required to be carried out. I have no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the conditions are not enforceable.

I therefore find that the conditions meet the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).

Accordingly, having regard to the above considerations, I conclude that the variation of condition 2 and the removal of condition 4 of planning permission 23/1095/RSP would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12 of the [name] (2011) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the DMPD. Together, and amongst other things, these policies require that development does not lead to a gradual deterioration in the quality of the built environment and that it is of a high quality that respects local distinctiveness and has regard to local context and conserves or enhances the character, amenities and quality of an area.

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