Appeal 6000956

The appeal is dismissed.

The reason for refusal on the Council’s decision notice refers to their [name]. However, the Council’s officer report confirms that car parking provision is not a matter in dispute between the main parties and I have therefore not considered the guidelines in my appeal deliberations.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings regarding privacy and outlook.

Roundcroft is a residential street comprising mainly 2-storey properties. This side of Roundcroft is characterised by a sense of uniformity, created by the existence of dwellings of a similar design and material palette, with variation achieved in a somewhat regimented way by varying roof slope orientations. It is particularly noticeable that roof slopes in the immediate vicinity are largely devoid of alteration, which is an attribute that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] Roundcroft (No [site address] ) is one of a pair of comparable gable fronted dwellings that have remained largely unchanged from how they were originally planned. No [site address] sits forward of its neighbour at 1 Roundcroft (No 1) and the main part of the dwelling at 5 Roundcroft (No 5), giving it more presence within the street scene. Consequently, its side facing roof slopes are more noticeable from both directions along Roundcroft than they would otherwise be. Visibility of the roof slopes is also enhanced by the presence of substantial gaps between the properties at first floor level and above, created by the presence of the single storey garage to No [site address] and extension to No 5.

Beyond the rear garden of No [site address] is a footpath and the rear garden of [address] (No 8), the property of which is set at an oblique angle.

Whilst the proposal seeks a relatively modest increase in roof height, the change would be noticeable from the street scene, exacerbated by the property’s location forward of its neighbours. The increase would be out-of-keeping with the regimented design of properties in its immediate vicinity and would unbalance the proportions of the pair of dwellings, which contribute to the overall appearance of the area.

Despite amendments having been made to previous iterations of the proposal, the proposed dormers would extend almost to the ridgeline, and due to their overall scale, particularly in relation to the larger dormer, would fail to be subservient to the existing roof. Furthermore, their flat roofed design, proximity to the ridgeline, and in the case of the larger dormer its proximity to the front gable, would create a box shape when viewed from the front of the property. The significant alterations to the roof slope would create a cluttered, top heavy and out of balanced appearance, and would therefore be at significant odds with surrounding properties that are largely devoid of roof alterations.

Whilst there are examples of dormers in the wider surrounding area, details of which have been provided by the Council, I observed on my site visit that they are in very different contexts to the proposal before me and are therefore not wholly comparable. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that they are lawful.

For the above reasons, I find significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, contrary to Policies DSC1 and DSC2 of the Broxbourne Local Plan (2020) (the LP), which, amongst other things, expect a high standard of design that, wherever possible, must enhance local character and distinctiveness, and require all extensions and alterations to respect the character and design of the building.

Although the proposed smaller dormer would be set back on the roof slope, which would enable the occupants to see into a greater amount of the rear garden of No 5, views would be at an oblique angle. Furthermore, it is likely that the occupants of No [site address] already have similar oblique views into the rear garden of No 5 from the rear first floor windows of the dwelling and it is therefore unlikely that the proposed development would worsen the level of overlooking that currently exists.

The proposal seeks alterations to accommodate an additional storey within the roof space, which would include only a modest increase in ridge height. Furthermore, the proposal would not extend built form beyond the existing footprint of the property. It is also noted that the side elevations of No 1 and No 5, which most closely relate to the proposed development, do not benefit from windows that could otherwise provide an outlook for occupants.

The proposal would not affect outlook for the occupants of No 8 due to the intervening distance facilitated by the rear gardens and the footpath, and the relative orientation of the properties, despite the elevated position of No [site address] . [name] have had regard to the acceptable window to window distances set out in the Council’s Borough-Wide Supplementary Planning Guidance (2004) (amended in 2013), I have also had regard to the site-specific circumstances of the proposal in this case.

Thus, I conclude that the proposal would not be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings regarding privacy and outlook. Consequently, the proposed development would comply with LP Policy EQ1, which, amongst other things, requires development proposals within the urban area to avoid detrimental impacts on the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking and outlook.

The appellant asserts that dormers could be installed under permitted development rights, without the need for planning permission, which would represent a fallback position that would inevitably change the appearance of the dwelling. Whilst the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) does allow for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof, there are various limitations and conditions. There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate what such a fallback scheme would look like and therefore, I am unable to make a comparison with that which is before me. Furthermore, the appellant has also indicated that the fallback scheme would likely be more costly and labour intensive due to the need to alter ceiling heights. It is therefore unlikely that the fallback position would have a realistic prospect of being implemented.

I have no reason to doubt that the appellant has sought improvements to the dwelling since first occupation and that they want to work proactively with the Council to find a solution. However, this does not weigh in favour of the proposal before me. I also note that no objections have been received from neighbours. However, a lack of objections does not equate to a lack of harm, and I have determined the proposal on its planning merits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.