Appeal 6002096

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development differs from the application form to the decision notice. The description of development in the banner above has been taken from the decision notice albeit with the removal of reference to the word retrospective given that this is not an act of development. I find the Council’s description to be a concise and accurate description of the development before me. I note that the appellant is agreeable to the revised wording.

During my site visit I noted that development has already taken place and appears to be in line with the submitted plans. I have assessed the appeal on this basis.

The appeal site is situated within the Folkestone, Leas & Bayle Conservation Area (CA) wherein I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The appellant’s statement has referred to inaccuracies in the Council’s officer report including in relation to paragraph numbers referenced from the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and site history which is not relevant to the appeal site. The Council has clarified that the latter was incorrectly included within its statement. I have had regard to Section 72(1) of the Act, the most recent version of the Framework as well as the relevant policies within the Folkestone & Hythe District Places and Policies Local Plan (2020) (the Local Plan), (to which I have been provided with copies) in my decision.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host building, and whether the development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the Folkestone, Leas & [name].

The appeal site forms a semi-detached multi-storey property to the west of [address]. [address] is made up of similarly designed and scaled semi-detached villas, many of which like the appeal property have been converted into flats. Despite the similarities in design, alterations and extensions are frequent. Roof dormers of various sizes, designs and positions on roofs are common within the street scene, being visible on most, if not all of the properties in the immediately surrounding area.

The Folkestone, Leas & [name] extends over a relatively wide area. At the point of the appeal site, the significance of the CA is derived in part from the formalised structured layout of properties. Despite previous alterations, as evidenced through a comparison with historic photographs, the villas along [address] still make a positive contribution to the overall character and appearance of the CA.

The appeal property has existing roof dormers, including stacked roof dormers on the front elevation, serving the two floors within the mansard roof. Despite the slightly ad hoc arrangement of the front roof dormers, the original mansard roof of the property is still readily legible from the front elevation. I understand that prior to the appeal development, there was also a roof dormer on the side roof slope, albeit the main parties agree that this was not an original feature of the property.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the principle of a roof dormer on the side roof slope would be acceptable. It is equally accepted that, other than the felt roof, the materials used in the development are appropriate. Based on the evidence before me I see no reason to reach a different conclusion on either of these points.

However, despite being set down marginally from the overall pitch of the roof, and set in from the side, the dormer as built dominates the side roof slope within which it sits. Although it does not affect the lower half of the mansard roof, given its scale and bulk, it renders the original form of the mansard roof barely legible from the side of the property, representing a top-heavy addition. Overall, it appears as a boxy addition to the roof which fails to assimilate and complement the overall character of the roof form of the property.

The overhang of the felt roof further emphasizes the unsympathetic nature of the development, albeit if I were otherwise minded to allow the appeal, this element could be rectified through a suitably worded condition. Nevertheless, the change in roof material alone would not eradicate the overall harm of the development.

Despite its positioning at the side of the property, and its height above the street scene, rather than being a discrete addition, the development holds prominence in the street scene due to its dominating and unsympathetic form. Whilst existing vegetation does offer some screening, it does not prevent the development from forming a conspicuous addition to both the immediate street scene and wider views.

The appellant has drawn my attention to various examples of roof dormers and other roof additions in the area, many of which I observed during my site visit. Notwithstanding that I do not have the status of these developments with regard to planning permission, of the examples provided, none appear to be directly comparable to the appeal development before me for consideration.

Moreover, in some cases, rather than providing justification for the development in question, many of the examples given point to a need for such proposals to be carefully controlled to prevent further deterioration to the character and appearance of the wider area and the designated CA.

Having considered the appeal development on its individual merits, it causes harm to the character and appearance of the host building and in turn fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. The development is therefore contrary to Policy HB1 of the Local Plan which seeks amongst other matters, for a proposal to make a positive contribution to its location and surroundings. It is also contrary to Policy HB8 of the Local Plan which relates to alterations and extensions to buildings. In particular reference to dormer extensions, the policy requires extensions to be in proportion to the existing roof, thus maintaining overall building proportions and avoiding a top-heavy appearance.

The appeal development has received letters of support from interested parties. It is stated that the development represents an improvement compared to the previous roof dormer. Whilst the support received is noted, it does not persuade me to alter my overall conclusions outlined above.

Taking all of the above into account, I find the harm to the CA to be at the lower end of less than substantial, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the development.

The development provides additional internal living space which it is stated allows the opportunity to provide a home working space. This largely represents a private benefit rather than a public one. Whilst it is suggested that home working leads to environmental benefits through a reduction in the need for travel, I have no means of controlling how the internal space will be used. Even if I could control the use of the space, the public benefits associated with the development would be marginal.

An interested party has stated that the previous roof light caused leaking into the stairwell which has been overcome through the appeal development. Notwithstanding that I have little substantive evidence to demonstrate this to be the case, it again primarily represents a private benefit. The public benefits associated with the development are at best marginal.

I therefore conclude that the development fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 215 of the Framework, and it is not in accordance with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, and having considered all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.