Appeal 3360284

The appeal is dismissed.

Retrospective planning permission was granted at [site address] for a rear flat roof dormer and soil vent. The appellant wishes to retain the existing dormer cladding, thus seeks to remove condition 2 which relates to the materials of the dormer. I have no reason to disagree with the conclusions reached by the Council in respect of all other issues relating to the determination of the planning application.

Therefore, the main issue is the effect that removing condition 2 would have on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

No 34 is a semi-detached dwelling located in a residential area. The appellant has drawn my attention to other dormers in the locality and cladding. In general, these use darker cladding which is of a similar colour to the roof or relate to smaller dormers with pitched roofs and matching roof tiles. The examples therefore are not directly comparable to the case before me. Furthermore, I do not have the full details of these cases, and I have considered the appeal proposal on its own merits.

On my site visit I observed that whilst there were examples of dwellings with dormer windows to the rear elevation, they were not a common feature in the locality. The external surface of the rear facing dormer windows I saw were largely of a similar colour to the roof tiles and the colour did not draw the eye.

No 34’s dormer window is large and covers a substantial proportion of the rear roof. Given that the dormer is located to the rear, it is not visible from [address] (including the garage and parking area to the side). However, it is visible from [address].

The Council has provided copies of Policy SP 55 of the Rotherham Local Plan: Sites and Policies (2018) and Policy CS 28 of the Rotherham Local Plan: [name] 2013-2028. These collectively seek, amongst other things, to ensure developments are of high quality and use appropriate materials. Furthermore, the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2020) (SPD) states that the use of UPVC cladding will accentuate the appearance of a dormer.

The cladding is a very light grey and therefore contrasts with the colour of the roof, and accentuates the appearance of the large dormer. Thus, when viewed from the highway between Nos 15 and [address], the external surface appears stark and draws the eye which detracts from the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. Consequently, the cladding results in an unsatisfactory appearance that is not sympathetic to the host dwelling or surrounding area.

I sympathise with the appellant that it would be costly to paint or replace the dormer safely. Furthermore, I recognise that the dormer is not higher than the original roof ridge, and there is a reasonable distance between the dormer and [address]. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have found.

For these reasons, removing condition 2 would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and is necessary to ensure a satisfactory appearance. It therefore would conflict [name] 55 and CS 28 as well as the aims of the SPD.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Consequently, the appeal does not succeed.