Appeal 6001701

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension to rear, dormer loft conversion to rear and reconfiguration of existing dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01158/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A120-P02 - [name] 1 of 2; A121-P02 – [name] 2 of 2 and A200-P02 – Existing and [name].

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on drawings: A200-P02 – Existing and [name] and A900-P02 - External Materials Schedule.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: i) the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area; and ii) the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring property at [address], with particular reference to light, outlook and privacy.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. The surrounding character is mainly residential, comprising two-storey detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. The surrounding properties exhibit a range of roof forms and when viewed from [name] to the rear it is evident that a number of properties benefit from rear dormer windows of differing scales and designs.

The proposal comprises a rear dormer which would stretch the full width of the roof and sit slightly below the height of the current ridge. There would be limited visibility of the proposed dormer from Scotland Road. Only its side elevation would be visible in the gap between the appeal property and the neighbouring property. This would result in a similar appearance to side elevations of properties elsewhere on the street, where the side elevation extends to the rear at the same height as the ridge. To the rear of the property, the dormer would be visible from the recreation ground. However, the views are quite distant given the long back gardens.

The Development Management Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides guidance on the design of residential extensions. The width, scale and form of the proposed dormer would conflict with some of the guidance in the SPD. Whilst the dormer does add bulk at the roof level, this is mitigated by the stepped nature of the rear elevation of the property and the limited public vantage points. The proposed materials would blend in well with the existing roof tiles. Given the variety of roof forms in the vicinity, the dormer would not be overly dominant or out of keeping with the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.

The proposed dormer would disrupt some of the symmetry of the property. However, given this is a rear elevation with limited visibility and the rear elevations of neighbouring properties lack coherence, I consider this would not cause harm.

The SPD advises that new windows should reflect the proportions of those on the existing dwelling. The windows proposed are larger than windows on other nearby dormers. However, the windows proposed are in proportion to the windows on the main rear elevation in terms of height. Therefore, I consider the windows would not be out of character with the surroundings.

The proposal also comprises a rear single-storey extension, which would replace an existing single-storey projection at the rear of the property. Although the proposed extension would take up the full width of the property for some of its length, it would not extend as far as the existing single-storey projection and would extend no further than the single-storey projection on the adjoining neighbouring property. The massing of the proposed extension would be broken up by its stepped design and the inclusion of a courtyard. Furthermore, the proposed extension would not be highly visible from any public vantage points. Accordingly, the proposed extension would not be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.

The dormer and rear extension collectively would remain subordinate to the existing property and would appropriately respect the context and characteristics of the site and its surroundings. Whilst there is some conflict with the guidance in the SPD, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the site or its surroundings. Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would be consistent with Policy GD8 of the Harborough Local Plan (LP). This policy requires development to be of a high standard of design and sets out a detailed criteria which includes ensuring development respects the context and characteristics of the individual site, street scene and wider local environment.

The appeal property adjoins [address] to the south. Due to this orientation, there would be no loss of sunlight reaching No 67 or its garden as a result of the proposed development. In terms of daylight, any impacts from the proposed dormer on No 67 would be minor given the orientation of Nos 67 and 69 and the height and massing of the proposed dormer.

The eaves height of the proposed single storey extension would be similar to that of the existing boundary fence and at its highest point would only be marginally higher than the fence. Therefore, it would not have a detrimental effect on the amount of daylight reaching the windows on No 67.

Accordingly, the proposed development would not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of No 67 with regard to sunlight and daylight.

Given that the eaves height of the proposed single-storey rear extension would be similar to that of the existing boundary fence and that the proposed extension would be stepped back from the boundary, this element of the proposal would not negatively affect the outlook of occupiers of No 67. As the proposed rear dormer would sit within the existing roof slope and would not extend beyond the existing ridge height of the appeal property, it would not cause harm to outlook from any of the windows at No 67.

The windows in the proposed rear dormer would overlook the neighbouring garden at No 67 from an elevated position. However, this would not increase the existing degree of overlooking of the garden at No 67 from the existing rear first floor windows of the appeal property.

To the north, [address] lies adjacent to the two-storey flank wall of the appeal property’s rear projection. Given the existing height and form of the rear projection, the proposed dormer would not alter the levels of daylight and sunlight to a degree which would result in a significant adverse impact on living conditions

I conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of existing residents through loss of light, outlook or privacy. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy GD8 of the LP which requires, amongst other matters, development to be designed to not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of existing and new residents through loss of privacy, overshadowing and overbearing impact.

Whilst the full width extension may frustrate the ability of the occupants of the appeal property to transfer their garden waste to the bin store, this inconvenience would not cause significant impacts to the living conditions of the occupants of the appeal property.

To meet legislative requirements, a condition is imposed to address the period for commencement. A condition specifying the relevant plans is necessary for certainty. The Council suggested a condition requiring external materials to match those of the existing building. However, the application is supported by details of proposed materials and some of these do not match those on the existing building. I consider the materials proposed to be acceptable. Therefore, rather than imposing the condition proposed by the Council, a condition is imposed to require materials to be in accordance with those shown on the plans and the External Materials Schedule.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.