Appeal 6001402

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development cited in the planning application form and decision notice differs to that contained within the appeal form. In the interests of clarity, I rely upon the description as included in the application form for the purposes of the heading above.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal relates to a T-shaped, detached, two-storey dwelling with a pitched roof, located within a small ribbon of development set back from the road. The surrounding properties primarily comprise well-proportioned two-storey dwellings of varying designs with pitched roofs. The roof slopes of a number of these properties remain unaltered or do not incorporate dormers, thereby preserving their pitched roof form and making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. The roof of the appeal property is also free of protruding alterations, contributing to this identified character.

The proposed dormer would be well set in from the sides and, to a lesser extent, the eaves. It would also align its windows with those at first-floor level. However, its limited set-down from the ridge, together with its flat-roofed design, scale and bulk, would result in it occupying a substantial proportion of the host roof slope on this elevation. This would create an awkward and unduly bulky feature which would dominate the building. Moreover, the form and design of the box dormer is more typical of those found on rear elevations within urban or suburban settings.

The orientation and position of the appeal property close to the highway, together with its notable separation from neighbouring dwellings, would make the proposal highly visible within the street scene. This visual prominence would further exacerbate the harm to the character and appearance of the area. As a result, a dormer of this design in this location would appear highly incongruous and unsympathetic, standing out against the rural, agrarian surroundings and the unaltered, well-proportioned pitched-roof dwellings nearby.

The use of materials to match those of the host property would do little to mitigate these identified harms. Furthermore, while high-level planting may provide some degree of screening, this would not be effective during the autumn and winter months.

While some nearby properties incorporate roof-level features such as dormers or roof windows, these are generally modest in scale and proportion. They do not dominate their host buildings and therefore preserve the overall character of both the host dwellings and the surrounding area.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with East Cambridge Local Plan Policies ENV 1, ENV 2, HOU 8 and GROWTH 2. Collectively, these policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure development avoids adverse effects on local character and appearance and is of high quality, responding positively to and complementing the character of the original dwelling. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), insofar as it seeks development to be sympathetic to local character.

I acknowledge that the proposal would provide additional and improved residential accommodation. However, this does not outweigh the harm identified or the conflict with the development plan and the Framework.

I note the appellant's comments on permitted development rights for dormer extensions. However, it is not a matter for this appeal to reopen the merits of the

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.