Appeal 6000857

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for loft conversion with dormer roof extensions to the sides and two small dormer windows to the front roof slope. Front porch, new entrance door to primary elevation, existing side porch demolished to allow side access door. Window alterations, new flue for woodburner at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name].25/0799/HHOLD and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 0306 001, 0249 002, 0313 201 revision B, 0313 202 revision C, 0313 203 revision E and 0313 204 revision B.

The first-floor dormer window hereby permitted on the south western elevation of the dwelling shall be glazed in obscure glass and it should be maintained as such thereafter.

The development works hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the recommendations in the [name] Survey Assessment Focusing on Bats, dated March 2025.

An application for costs has been made by [name] against Stroud District Council. This is the subject of a separate decision notice.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, including its effect on the Cotswolds National Landscape (hereafter referred to as the NL).

The Council’s concerns relate to the proposed alterations to the roof, excluding the proposed flue. No objection is raised to the flue, the demolition of the side porch, the proposed front entrance door and new porch or the alterations to the ground floor windows. I find no reason to disagree with the Council’s views on the acceptability of these proposed works. Accordingly, my assessment focuses on the proposed additions to the roof, excluding the flue.

The appeal property (No 11) is a residential bungalow. It has a pitched roof with the ridgeline to the main part of the house parallel to the front elevation. A projection to the rear has a ridgeline at a right angle to the ridge on the front part of the property. No 11 is near to the edge of the built up extent of [site address] but it is close to other dwellings on [address]. The nearby residences tend to have pitched roofs with low eaves just above ground floor windows, although several of the local dwellings include dormers within the roof slopes.

The proposed front dormers would be clearly seen from the road when approaching the site from the direction of [address] and [address]. Also, No 11 is located on the outside of a bend and set further forward than [address] (No 9). As a result, the proposed dormer in the north east facing side roof slope would be seen from the road, although roadside vegetation means it would only be visible when near to the property. The proposed dormer on the other side of the house would be hidden from the road. Even so, the roof alterations when considered together would have a noticeable effect on the appearance of No 11.

The lower edges of the proposed front dormers would sit above the eaves and they would be set away from the side of the roof and from each other. As such, they would appear in proportion to the front elevation of No 11. Also, they would be finished in materials to match the existing roof and the fenestration would align with new windows at ground floor level. The front dormers would be similar in appearance to others at nearby dwellings and so they would be sympathetic to the overall street scene as well as to the host building.

The dormer in the north east facing side would be similar to the front dormers in that its lower edge would be well above the eaves and it would be set down from the ridgeline and in from the sides of the roof. Consequently, it would sit comfortably within the roof slope without appearing bulky. The side dormer would not appear prominent in the road as it would be hidden to a degree by the front part of No 11. Where it is seen, it would appear as a modest roof addition. The Council raises a concern that there are no other side dormers within the vicinity of the site. However, even if this contention is accepted, the north east facing dormer would not appear unusual given the existing dormers at nearby houses that form part of the local street scene. It would have a flat roof but there are already flat roof dormers at other local properties.

Cumulatively, the proposed dormers would increase the size of No 11’s roof. However, it would not be possible to see all the additions together. Also, the original roof would still be recognisable as the dormers would be modest in size and set away from eaves, ridges and the sides of the building. Even when considered together, the proposed roof enlargements would not overwhelm nor subsume the property.

Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (the section 245 duty) includes a requirement to seek to further the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. The appeal site lies within the NL and so I have had regard to this duty in my assessment. The proposed roof additions would be seen as part of an existing property and largely against the existing roof form. Therefore, they would have no meaningful effect on views from [address] across the appeal site towards the open countryside beyond. As such, the development would safeguard the natural and scenic qualities of the NL.

For the above reasons, I conclude the roof additions and the proposed development as a whole would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and local area. In these regards, the proposal would accord with bullet point 2 of policy HC8 and point 5 of policy CP14, both from the Stroud District Local Plan 2015. Amongst other things, these look to ensure development including house extensions are of an appropriate design that is in keeping with the original dwelling. Moreover, the proposal would conserve the natural beauty of the NL and so I find no conflict with the section 245 duty.

Other concerns and comments have been raised. I am advised that No 11 is near to a historic landfill site but the proposed development would not disturb contaminated land as it involves works to an existing building.

The proposed first floor windows to the front would face the road rather than any neighbouring properties, whilst those in the north east facing side of No 11 would overlook No 9’s front driveway rather than any private garden space. The proposed dormer window on the other side elevation would serve a bathroom and so it would be appropriate to impose a condition that requires obscure glazing. This would ensure no intrusive loss of privacy to the adjoining dwelling.

These other concerns do not provide justifiable reason to refuse planning permission. Therefore, they do not affect my overall conclusion.

Whilst not suggested by the Council, I have imposed a condition that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans. This is needed in the interests of clarity. The condition only refers to those plans that show the proposed development rather than the existing building on the site.

I have imposed the condition suggested by the Council on obscure glazing to safeguard living conditions for occupiers of the adjacent residence. Also, the Council has suggested condition 4, which I have included to ensure no harm to protected species and nesting birds.

For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.