Appeal 6002196

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council amended the description of the development, and I note that this description has also been used in the appeal form. I have used this description as it is more detailed.

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

The appeal property, (No 6) is a detached dwelling sited at the end of a residential cul-de-sac. There is a substantial recreational ground at the rear of the property on the southeastern side. No 6 has recently been extended to incorporate a flat roof extension to the rear at ground floor level. A rear dormer with the provision of a balcony was also approved under this permission, although this has not yet been constructed1. The appeal proposal seeks to replace the dormer and balcony as approved by a larger sized rear dormer which would extend across much of the full width of the rear roof slope projecting outwards over the rear flat roof extension.

Amongst other things, the Council’s Residential Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (RAE guide), approved 2017, provides that the form and scale of extensions should be appropriate to the original dwelling, in scale with the existing roof and to not spoil the existing roof form. In addition, it sets out parameters for the size and scale of rear dormers which in this instance would be substantially exceeded. 1 23/01259/HHA

Due to its size, the proposed dormer would result in a bulky feature which would dominate the rear roof slope and be at odds with the original gable design of the dwelling. The extension would appear disproportionately large in relation to the original dwelling and would introduce a haphazard roof form where the original and extended elements of the proposal would meet. It would be conspicuous in views from the neighbouring properties and the adjacent recreation area and cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area.

My attention has been drawn to other rear dormer extensions present within the vicinity. However, I do not know the circumstances that led to those dormers being considered acceptable, nor are they typical of the area, where as a whole the original appearance of elevations to the rear of the houses remain largely intact. As such, I am unable to make any meaningful comparisons with the current proposal and therefore attribute little weight to them. In any event, I am determining the appeal on its own merits.

I appreciate that the appellant has sought to address the concerns raised by the Council in pre-application discussions and that the proposal would remove the balcony element of the first floor rear extension previously approved. Nonetheless the proposed dormer would result in harm as I have outlined above. I acknowledge too that no objections to the proposal have been received and that the Council do not raise concerns in relation to the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Given the angle and juxtaposing of the properties on Branksome Park and the distances involved, I would concur with this assessment. However, the absence of harm in these respects does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of No 6 and the surrounding area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies CSTP22, CSTP23 and PMD2 of the [name] and Policies for the Management of Development (as amended) (2015), which provides amongst other things, that development should respect local character and provide contextually appropriate design. It would also be contrary to guidance within the [name], details of which I have given above.

The appellant has also referred to the handling of the application by the Council; this is not a matter before me, or one which alters my consideration of the merits of the case.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.