Appeal 6001235

The appeal is dismissed.

From the evidence submitted, and from my site visit, the proposed development has commenced. However, this has no bearing on my assessment of the development before me.

The main issue is the effect of the rear dormer on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the area.

The appeal property is the end house of a short terrace of four properties on the end of a cul-de-sac on a housing estate. The design of the properties provides a pleasant character to the area. Although the appeal property is the end house its gable end and rear elevation are not visible from the public highway or any public vantage points. Nevertheless, the rear elevation is visible from a number of neighbouring properties, including the attached property.

The Coventry City Council Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) advises that all extensions need to respect the main building and be subservient in design. It advises that dormers should be set at least 700mm from the side boundary of the roof slope and 1m from the eaves, that they should not dominate the roof slope and occupy no more than half the width or depth of the roof slope.

From the evidence before me the dormer, which has been constructed on the rear, extends to almost the full width of the roof slope. It, therefore, does not meet the measurement standards in the SPD and it occupies more than half of both the width and depth of the roof slope. The SPD guidance is provided to ensure the scale and mass of the dormer is in proportion with the existing house.

The dormer has resulted in the introduction of a large structure on the roof. It is visually intrusive as it draws attention away from the appearance of the appeal property. It is an overly dominant and top-heavy feature which is out of proportion with the host dwelling. Although the dormer is to the rear and despite the use of appropriate materials, it is visually incongruous due to its scale and massing.

The appellant contends that the development would constitute permitted development (PD) and that the property is not indicated as within an area where the PD rights have been removed, as shown on the Council’s website. Nevertheless, the Council has confirmed that the PD rights for this form of development have been removed for the whole of this estate, under the original planning permission. Consequently, the development requires permission.

At my visit I saw one other dormer on the rear of a property behind [address]. I do not have the full details of that development and whether it was constructed under permitted development rights or not. However, the scale and appearance of that dormer is tempered by its relationship with the two storey gable end extension. I also do not have any details of the numerous similar and large dormer extensions noted by the appellant to consider whether they are directly comparable. That large dormers can be constructed under PD rights would not make the appeal scheme acceptable, when considering it against the adopted development plan and the SPD. Moreover, other examples of poor design do not persuade me to consolidate the area with further incongruous development.

For the above reasons, the scale and mass of the rear dormer has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the area. It therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Policy DE1 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan 2017, which, amongst other matters, requires development to respect and enhance their surroundings. Moreover, the development does not comply with the guidance in the SPD in terms of its scale, mass, and proportions.

The appeal scheme would, although making efficient use of land and the existing home, also fail to comply with the design guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

The appellant has advised that the dormer provides valuable additional living space. However, I have little evidence before me that the bedroom in the roof space would not be capable of functioning as such with a smaller dormer, or two separate dormers serving the bedroom and ensuite. The preferences of the property owner does not outweigh the harm identified above.

That the dormer would not result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring properties is a neutral matter and would not outweigh or alter my decision on the

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.