Appeal 6001997

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The Council does not assert that the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. On the evidence before me, and from what I observed on site, I see no reason to disagree.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of number [address], number [address] and number [address], with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal relates to a two-storey, detached dwelling on [address], which forms part of a wider residential estate consisting of a variety of dwelling types and sizes. Notwithstanding this variety, the properties on this street, and the wider estate, are characterised by the use of red brick and render on their external elevations, with concrete tile pitched roofs. I observed that some properties do contain dormers within their roof. However, these were predominately modest in size, with pitched roofs, and did not therefore dominate the roofscape of their host property.

The appeal property has a single storey rear extension, and its rear garden adjoins the rear gardens of a number of neighbouring properties to both the side and rear. Nevertheless, views of the rear elevation of the appeal property from public vantage points are afforded through gaps between surrounding dwellings, most prominently between the properties at numbers 23 and [address].

[address] Extensions Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (SPD) states (at paragraph 3.41) that a dormer extension should be of a scale that is in keeping with the original property, and one that is large in scale and dominates the roofscape will be unacceptable. It also states that the design of the dormer should be subordinate to the main roof structure.

In this regard, according to the submitted plans the proposed rear dormer would extend very close to the ridge of the existing roof. It would also be set close to the existing eaves and be almost as wide as the dwelling, with a narrow gap provided to both the side gable elevations. As a result of its size and scale the proposed dormer would present a visually large and bulky addition to the roofscape, creating a significant visual mass of built development at roof level.

I therefore find that the overall size, scale, bulk and design of the proposed rear dormer would result in an incongruous addition that would not appear as subordinate to the existing roof. Consequently, it would dominate, and detract from, the rear roofscape of the appeal dwelling, to the visual harm of the character of the area.

In coming to this view, I acknowledge the dormer would be sited at the rear of the dwelling. However, as mentioned, the rear elevation and roofscape of the appeal property is visible from public vantage points along surrounding highways through gaps between surrounding dwellings. Furthermore, the proposal would also be visible from the rear garden areas and rear elevations of a number of surrounding properties.

In addition, due to the appeal property’s siting slightly forward of the dwellings either side, the rear dormer would also be visible from sections of the highway of [address] to the front, when viewed from either side of the appeal dwelling. From these public vantage points, and neighbouring properties, the proposed dormer would be visually harmful.

I note the Council also raise a concern over the material finish of the proposed dormer, stating that it would be finished in a render to match the partial render of the host dwelling. However, both the submitted planning application form and proposed plan state that the dormer would be finished with vertical composite panels (colour Anthracite grey). Given this colour would be similar to the existing roof tiles, I do not find that the material finish of the proposed dormer would be unacceptable.

My attention has been drawn to other rear dormer extensions on properties within this estate and I acknowledge that not all these dormers are sympathetic to their host dwelling or the wider area. Nevertheless, there is little information before me on the planning history of these dormer extensions. Furthermore, the existence of other dormer extensions in the wider area does not justify the harm I have identified, and I have determined the appeal on its individual planning merits against the most up-to-date planning policies and guidance. As such I attribute limited weight to these other dormers in my determination of this appeal.

In view of all the above, I conclude that the proposed rear dormer would result in visual harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the surrounding area in general. The appeal scheme is therefore contrary to the objectives of Policy CP10 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2013) (CS) and Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (2024) where they together require, amongst other things, that proposals respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, size and scale.

The proposal would also fail to satisfy the requirements of the Framework which seeks to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character, as well as paragraph 139 which states that development that is not well designed should be refused. It would also not accord with the relevant guidance contained within the SPD, which I have set out above. Living conditions Numbers 3 (No.3) and 5 (No.5) [address]

The rear elevation of the appeal dwelling currently faces towards the rears of the properties at No.3 and No.5. Given the existing back-to-back relationship, there is currently an element of overlooking from the existing first-floor windows in the rear elevation of the appeal property towards the rear elevations, and rear garden areas, of No.3 and No.5.

However, I observed on site that due to the existing fencing and some vegetation along the shared rear boundaries, views from the existing first-floor windows within the appeal dwelling into the rear garden areas of No.3 and No.5 are currently limited. As such, I found that occupants of No.3 and No.5 are not currently unduly overlooked, when using their rear garden areas, by the existing first-floor windows in the rear of the appeal property.

The proposed dormer would include two openings in its rear elevation, an en-suite window and a Juliette balcony serving the bedroom. It is likely that the en-suite window within the proposed dormer would be obscurely glazed, and a condition to that effect could be attached should I be minded to allow the appeal.

Nevertheless, the proposed Juliette balcony opening is large in size, consisting of a set of double doors. [name] acknowledge that this opening and balcony would not allow occupants to step out of the bedroom, given its size and its position above eaves level, this proposed large opening would provide clear and elevated views towards and into the rear garden areas of the properties at No. 3 and No.5. I therefore find the appeal proposal would provide a significantly greater level of overlooking towards these rear garden areas than that currently experienced from the existing windows in the rear elevation of the appeal property.

The level of overlooking afforded towards these neighbouring garden areas is only exacerbated by the change in land levels, with the appeal property being slightly raised above these neighbouring garden areas, as well as, the setting of the proposed dormer, and the opening / Juliette balcony, so close to the eaves of the appeal dwelling.

Consequently, I find that the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for the neighbouring occupants at No.3 and No.5, by way of overlooking into their rear garden areas.

In coming to this view, I am aware that the appellant states the separation distance provided between the dormer and neighbouring gardens are comparable to views that are generally achievable between properties on residential estates. The appellant also refers to other separation distances provided between properties elsewhere on this estate. However, I have assessed the impact of the appeal proposal based on my site-specific observations of the relationship between the proposed development and its neighbouring occupiers. Number [address] (No. 14)

I observed on site that the rear garden area of No.14 is currently significantly overlooked by one of the first-floor bedroom windows in the rear elevation of the appeal property. Given this existing relationship, I do not find that the appeal proposal would result in an unacceptable further loss of privacy for the occupiers of No.14.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupiers of No.14. However, the appeal proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupants of No. 3 and No. 5, by way of overlooking towards, and into, their rear garden areas. The proposal is therefore contrary to CS Policy CP17 where it seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that new development is planned and designed so that it does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on amenity and quality of life.

The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 135(f) of the Framework, which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing users, and the relevant guidance in the SPD where it states that the impact of overlooking and loss of privacy to adjacent houses will be taken into account when assessing proposals for dormers.

The appellant states that the proposal would increase capacity within the dwelling to meet the needs of the occupants. I have however limited evidence before me that an alternative extension scheme could not achieve additional space within this property without having a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

I note the Council’s Officer Report raises no concerns in respect of the proposed roof light in the front roof plane. Based on my observations on site I see no reason to disagree with this assessment.

The appellant states that the proposal would improve the housing stock and provide a larger household. There is however limited evidence before me that there is an identified need or requirement for larger sized housing in this area. I therefore attribute these matters limited weight in favour of the appeal proposal.

Economic benefits would arise from the proposal, including contributions to the local economy during the construction and furnishment of the development. These however would be short term benefits and given the scale of development the economic support to the area arising from the appeal proposal would be relatively small. I therefore attach limited weight in respect of the economic benefits.

I note the appellant has made reference to additional Council Tax revenue as a benefit of the appeal proposal. The Planning Practice Guidance1 is however clear that it would not be appropriate to make a decision based on the potential for a scheme to raise money for the local authority or other government body. As such, any additional Council Tax contributions do not add weight in favour of the appeal scheme. 1 Paragraph: 011 [name]: 21b-[phone]

The appellant also refers to the proposal not undermining the purposes of the Green Belt and not harming landscape character or ecological features such as trees, hedgerows or wildlife habitats. However, a lack of harm in respect of these matters weighs neither for, nor against, the appeal proposal.

[name] have found that there would be some limited benefits arising from the proposal, these benefits do not outweigh the harms I have found in respect of the proposal’s harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.