Appeal 6001945

The appeal is dismissed.

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

[address] is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling occupying a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The site is located in an established residential area which predominantly comprises 2-storey semi-detached dwellings occupying comfortably-sized plots. Most of the neighbouring properties have not been substantially extended or altered. The uniform nature of these dwellings results in a pleasant and ordered character and appearance to the surrounding area.

The proposal is for the sub-division of No 92 to form 2 dwellings, one of which would be formed within an approved 2-storey side extension1. To the rear elevation 2 flat roof dormer windows are proposed: one within the roof slope of the host dwelling and one within the roof slope of the side extension. The proposal differs from an existing extant planning permission2 which did not include a dormer window over the extension.

There would be a minimal separation between the 2 dormer windows and very little of the roof would be visible between the 2 structures. One of the dormer windows would wrap around the side elevation of the extension. Given this, the dormer windows would read as a single, large dormer window spanning most the width of the extended building. Whilst the dormer windows would be set down from 1 application ref P20/18977/F 2 Application ref P25/00750/HH the ridge and set above the eaves of the roof, given their combined width, box-like form, and projection beyond the roof slope of the side extension, they would appear bulky and incongruous and would dominate the roof, appearing as a discordant addition which would harmfully alter the modest appearance of the appeal property, detracting from the character and appearance of the area..

The proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Conflict therefore arises with those aims of policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy (2013) (CS) and policies PSP38 and PSP39 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) (LP) which seek to ensure that development is of a high standard of design and does not harm the character and amenity of the area.

In support of the proposal the appellant references householder permitted development (PD) rights for additions to the roof of a dwellinghouse, which, it is stated, has resulted in box-like dormer windows becoming a commonplace feature across the country. Be that as it may, the character of the surrounding area isn’t one which has been altered by the presence of dormer windows and there is no particular evidence that dormer windows which might be erected in the area under PD rights in the future would be comparable in scale and form to the appeal proposal or that they would have a similarly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

It is suggested that the smaller dormer window could be erected under PD if the subdivision of the property was approved. However, I have not been directed to an extant permission for the subdivision of the property to give substantial credence to. It is not therefore a PD right which could be realistically implemented if this appeal were dismissed. The main parties agree that the proposal goes beyond the scope of PD. It is therefore necessary to consider its compliance with the development plan. In this case, for the reasons set out above I have found conflict with the development plan in relation to the proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

It is noted that the appellant has sought to address the concerns raised by the Council in earlier planning applications3 and by the Inspectors in the related appeal decisions4. Nonetheless, for the reasons identified above, I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The Council has confirmed that it is not able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. As the proposal involves the provision of housing, Footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates the most important policies for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date and paragraph 11. d) ii. of the Framework is engaged. This requires that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies 3 Application references P24/02187/HH and P24/02826/HH 4 APP/P0119/D/3360066, APP/P0119/C/25/3361438 and APP/P0119/D/25/3361207 for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would make a small contribution towards housing supply on a small site with good access to facilities and public transport. The 2-bedroom dwelling would contribute to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes and would help meet an identified local housing need. This weighs in favour of the scheme and, when factoring in the supply shortfall, attracts moderate and meaningful weight as a scheme benefit.

There would also be short-term economic benefits associated with construction, and in the longer term contributions would be made by future occupiers to the local economy. Given the limited scale of the development and noting that most of the development has already been built, I attach limited weight to the development’s positive contributions in these senses.

On the other hand, I have found that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Chapter 12 of the Framework sets out that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. I give significant weight to the conflict with the development plan policies in this area.

Thus, whilst the Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the delivery of one dwelling, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Thus, the proposal would not constitute a sustainable form of development in terms of the Framework and does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.