Appeal 3362429

The appeal is dismissed.

In the box heading above I have used the description of the proposal taken from the Decision Notice because it is more comprehensive than that entered on the Application Form. The latter was “Proposed roof extension, loft conversion with works for greater safety, health and comfort.”

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and whether there is sufficient information to exclude the possibility of a protected species being present on site and impacted.

The appeal site is a two storey detached dwelling with rear extension, located on the west side of [address] in Datchet. No.19 is to its south and is two storey with a single storey garage. No 23 is a single storey dwelling and is located to the north of the appeal site. The Council’s Townscape Assessment identifies the area as post-1960s suburbs.

The proposal seeks to alter the roof by raising its ridges and inserting a dormer structure at the rear to accommodate a loft conversion. One chimney would also be increased in height. The proposed raising of the ridge and roof alterations would necessitate a sizeable flat roof section for the dormer room. This creates a flat section of roof which would be noticeably higher than the apex of the existing roof when viewed from the front or side.

The rear dormer roof slope would be excessively wide and dominant giving the dwelling a very top heavy massing and a disproportionate appearance. On its northern side it would also sit very awkwardly with the two storey side/rear extension with a hipped roof. The resulting various roof shapes would give the dwelling an incoherent appearance, each not relating well to each other.

The resulting development would be conspicuous from the road particularly looking south over the single storey property which is [address]. The plot would look overdeveloped. There is some uniformity with the appeal site and the housing to the south of the appeal site and as a result the proposal would disrupt this rhythm. Overall, the design is poor and conflicts with national and local principles of high quality design.

The appellant suggests that the flat roofed section would match the existing adjacent dwelling and is a widely accepted quality design. I do not agree with either of those contentions and in any event the former would not necessarily warrant accepting that solution as high quality design on the appeal dwelling. I do not consider works done at no.[address] to aid the appellant’s arguments as those are not in my view sympathetic to that property and in any event the built forms of the appeal property and no.20 are not identical having had differently shaped extensions.

On this issue I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area and would be contrary to policy QP3 of the Borough Local Plan (2013-2023), policy DAT2 of the Datchet Neighbourhood Plan 2022- 2033 and the Borough Wide Design Guide (2020).

The appeal property is within 200m of a watercourse and the proposal involves extensive work to the roof including the roof void. This raises a reasonable possibility of there being bats nesting or roosting in the roof area and so, in order to avoid the potential for harm to this protected species, a preliminary bat survey would be appropriate. As there is no bat survey before me, I am not able to rule out the possibility of bats being disturbed by the proposal and for that reason I cannot rule out the possibility of unacceptable harm to this protected species. Attaching a planning condition to a potential planning permission to require a bat survey to be produced prior to commencement of development does not provide a solution as the results may show the presence of bats but permission would have been granted.

Consequently, I conclude that there is insufficient information on which to conclude that harm to bats would be avoided and this would be in conflict with policy NR2 of the Council’s Borough Local Plan (adopted 2022).

Having considered all representations made, for the reasons given above, I dismiss the appeal. [name].C.