Appeal 6000647

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development has been taken from the appeal form. This more succinctly describes the appeal development than that given on the application form and so, no party would be prejudiced by this.

As set out in the appeal submission and from my site observations, the appeal development has already been carried out. Even though the appellant previously considered that the appeal scheme was permitted development under class B, part 1, Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015, as amended (GPDO), the lawfulness or otherwise of the dormer is not a matter for this appeal. Therefore, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the application submitted.

The main issue is the effect of the rear dormer on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area, in regard to its scale and design.

The appeal property is a mid-terraced dwelling, with a pitched tiled roof and pebble dashed walls. The appeal site is within a predominately residential area, comprised mainly semi-detached and terraced, 2 storey pitched roof dwellings. It is not within or close to a conservation area or listed buildings. In the local area there is some variety in house design and external treatment, with regard to colour and materials used and, a number of dwellings in the area have been extended, including some with rear dormers. The rear boundary of the appeal property backs onto a railway line with a busy main road beyond.

While only guidance, the Council’s Householder Design Guide SPD (2023), sets out that dormer window extensions on rear facing roof slopes should be of a proportionate scale and subservient to the main roof and that, the form of the new dormer should complement the architectural style of the host property.

The dormer is large and occupies much of the rear roof slope, with only a slight set back from the rear wall of the dwelling. It includes grey composite cladding and the windows do not line up with the windows below. As a result, the dormer appears as a top heavy feature on the roof of the dwelling, not subservient to the host property. Therefore, even though the proposal promotes the effective use of land and meets the needs of the appellant, the rear dormer, by virtue of its scale and design, including its external materials, appears as an overly dominant, anomalous feature on the host property.

While there is variety of external materials and colours used in the surrounding area and, even if dormers are commonplace in built-up areas, the design of the dormer is at variance to the existing more traditional design of the host dwelling. Also, while the appellant asserts the grey cladding compliments the contemporary design of the dormer and integrates well with the variety of different tones found at the appeal site and its surroundings, it is not similar to the external materials found on the host property. Therefore, such matters do not discernibly reduce the prominence of the appeal dormer on the dwelling and, it appears as an incongruous extension to the host property, harmful to its character and appearance.

While the immediate neighbouring property has a rear dormer, compared to the appeal dormer, it is smaller and of a different design and external materials, with a greater set back from the eaves. As a result, it appears less dominant than the appeal dormer and more subservient to its host property. Additionally, there are a number of examples of other rear dormers on properties along [address] which have been brought to my attention1. Some of these are large dormers, although they vary in terms of design and size. Most are not visible from public vantage points, apart from the rear dormer at [address], which can be seen from the road in the gap between dwellings and has grey external cladding materials. However, full details of the planning history for the other dormers found in the surrounding area has not been provided to allow direct comparison with the appeal dormer.

In the appeal decision ref APP/U4610/D/23/3314407 relating to a retrospective rear dormer granted permission in another part of Coventry, the Inspector found the dormer was acceptable having regard to its own merits, despite not meeting the Council’s guidance2. Furthermore, while no substantive details have been provided to compare this dormer with the appeal scheme, the Inspector found in that case, the lack of set back from the eaves was not harmful and that in design terms there would be essentially the same impacts to a proposal constructed under permitted development. Although, as set out by the appellant, the appeal dormer has a different external appearance to that which could be built under permitted development rights. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal dormer based on its own merits.

While the appeal dormer is not visible from [address], it is visible from public vantage points at the rear along [address]. Although, I observed during my site visit that due to the long distance separation to the public footway along this road and the intervening railway line and other structures and vegetation, the dormer is only visible on glimpsed views along this road. As a result, it does not 1 Including at Nos 53, 72, 120, 131, 159, 161, [address]. 2 SPG Guidance adopted in 2003, which has since been replaced by the Council’s Householder Design Guide SPD (2023). appear overly prominent within the context of its surroundings and so, does not harmfully affect the wider character and appearance of the surrounding area.

While it is asserted that the appeal dormer would be permitted development with different external materials and the appellant is supportive of a condition to change the materials, this would alter its design. For the reasons given above, the design of the appeal dormer is harmful to the host dwelling, whereas an alternative design, with external materials similar to those used on the exterior of the existing dwelling, would be less prominent and so, would have a less harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property. Also, I cannot be sure, based on the evidence provided, that in only changing the external materials, this would make the dormer ‘permitted development’ and acceptable in all respects. Additionally, interested parties have not had opportunity to comment on such revised design. Therefore, a condition requiring alternative external materials would not be reasonable.

In view of the above, while I find the appeal dormer would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area, by reason of its scale and design, it would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property. Therefore, it conflicts with Policy DE1 of the Coventry City Local Plan (December 2017), which, amongst other matters, requires all development to respond to the physical context of the site and have regard to opportunities to enhance the local built environment through new development and enhanced design.

While dismissing the appeal may have some personal impact on the appellant, particularly if the dormer must be removed, this does not affect my findings on the

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.