Appeal 6000089

The description of development above is taken from the Council’s decision notice as this more accurately reflects the proposal, albeit I have removed the term ‘Retrospective’ as this is not an act of development.

The development subject of this appeal has already been undertaken.

The dormer subject of this appeal occupies nearly all the rear roof slope of the appeal dwelling. Notably, it extends fully to the side of the property, being flush with its gable end and flank elevation. This results in the development completely transforming the roof profile of the dwelling, with the dormer appearing as a bulky, unduly dominant, and unsympathetic feature.

The main views of the proposal are from the rear garden of the appeal site, but it is also visible from neighbouring gardens. Public views are also available from limited vantage points within the streetscene, where it appears an incongruous addition.

The appellant’s certificate of lawfulness1 relates to a dormer that was contained within the property’s rear roof plane, including being set in from its gable end, and that utilised materials to match the finish of the dwelling’s roof. As such, that potential fallback position is of a more appropriate design and does not justify this appeal scheme. Nor would altering the external materials of the appeal dormer suitably address its unsympathetic bulk and form.

It is unclear from the evidence before me whether the other nearby examples of dormer developments, highlighted by the appellant, required or have secured 1 [name]: D0286.21 planning permission. Still, several of the examples differ in design to the appeal scheme or in their precise site contexts. Moreover, whilst some other poorly designed roof extensions are present nearby, these do not reflect the area’s prevailing character and appearance. As such, they do not merit emulation, nor do they justify the appeal scheme’s identified harm.

Although the use of a render finish to the dormer is not untoward, for the reasons outlined, the appeal scheme causes harm to the character of the host property and surrounding area. It therefore conflicts with the policies cited on the decision notice.

Despite causing harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area, and being visible from adjacent gardens, the development does not lead to a harmful overbearing impact, loss of outlook or light to occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. This is due to the scale and relationship of the dormer to the neighbouring properties, including the size of rear garden spaces.

Nor does the appeal scheme result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring residents, given that there is already mutual overlooking of garden spaces from first floor windows.

Accordingly, the appeal scheme would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

A lack of objections from neighbours is not a suitable reason to allow unacceptable development.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and no matters raised indicate a decision should be made otherwise.