Appeal 6002518

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of development does not refer to the retrospective nature of the proposal, but it is clear from the parties’ cases and my site visit that this is so. I have considered it accordingly. The main issues are therefore the effect of the rear dormer on a) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Numbers 85 and [address] (Nos. 85 and 83), with specific regard to privacy.

The appeal site comprises a two storey dwelling within a residential area, predominantly comprised of semi-detached properties. It forms part of a parallel row of dwellings along [address] and [address], where most properties have retained their unaltered and original hipped or gabled roof. This consistency in simple, traditional roof profiles is a defining feature of the street scene and surrounding area, which positively contributes to its character and appearance.

The dormer is set back from the eaves and does not project above the main ridgeline. However, its close proximity to the latter causes it to read as an almost continuous extension from it. Its side wall also extends up to the outer edge of the original roof. As such, and despite its conventional design, its substantial scale and massing occupy a large proportion of the original rear roof, resulting in a dominant, top heavy structure that overwhelms the host dwelling. Although the side extension Appeal Planning Officer 6002518 has extended the rear roofscape, this does little to alleviate the dormer’s sizable form, as it remains as an unduly prominent addition. It also fails to fully accord with the criteria outlined at paragraph 3.6.4. of the Supplementary Planning Document 4: A Guide for [address] Extensions & Alterations 2012 (SPD).

The appeal site is not in a Conservation Area, and the dormer is not visible from the front. Even so, due to its elevated position, it is visible from the rear gardens and upper floors of nearby dwellings, as well as from glimpsed views along [address] at the entrance to a car park and from within the car park itself. In these views, the dormer appears as a discordant and conspicuous addition, which jars against the traditional and simple roofscape of the surrounding area. Whilst rear dormers are a common form of domestic extension, none are present within the immediate vicinity. Some dormers, which I saw on my site visit, do exist more widely. However, they are not seen within the same context as the appeal site, are limited in number and do not form an established feature of the locality.

The dormers’ dark external finish integrates well with the surrounding dark roof tiles. Its windows are also limited to two and these broadly line up with and reflect the style and size of the existing first floor windows below. However, this does not fully address the concerns set out, which extend to wider matters. The dormer therefore results in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Together, and amongst other things, these require all developments to be visually attractive and to respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality.

Nos. 85 and 83 are a pair of semi-detached dwellings located at the rear. Both feature rear gardens which share the same rear boundary as the appeal site. The dormer does not achieve a 13.5 metre separation from the rear boundary, as outlined in paragraph 3.6.6. of the SPD. However, the SPD is not policy, and the dormer is contained within the main roof. Its relationship with Nos. 85 and 83’s rear gardens is, therefore, comparable to that of the existing dwelling. Whilst the dormer offers a higher vantage point for views, the close arrangement of properties in the area means that these occupant’s gardens already experience a degree of mutual overlooking from existing first floor windows. The window’s sizes are also similar to the first floor windows below, with one of these being obscure glazed. Furthermore, the existing boundary fence and mature trees provide additional screening.

For these reasons, the dormer does not result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 85 and 83, with specific regard to privacy. Accordingly, it does not conflict with Policy L7 of the [name] 2012 and the Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these require all developments to not prejudice the amenity of occupants of adjacent properties.

The appellant’s cited appeal decisions (Refs. 3267816, 3301445 and 3360110) are not sufficiently comparable. The dormers in these schemes related to either a detached, mid-terraced or bungalow dwelling, set within a different surrounding context that featured either a mixed scale and style of buildings, or had existing established dormers in close proximity. I have assessed the appeal scheme on its Appeal Planning Officer 6002518 own planning merits and in regard to its own context. I find it unacceptable for the reasons set out.

There is no sufficiently conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the appellant’s household needs cannot be met through alternative measures, which might have a lesser impact than the appeal scheme. I remain to be convinced that the appeal scheme is the only way to achieve the outcome the appellant desires.

Whilst a dormer could potentially be constructed under permitted development rights, it is evident that this fallback position would require a reduction in its size, resulting in a development of lesser scale. Consequently, I do not consider it to be a comparable alternative. In any case, a scheme for a dormer that would satisfy permitted development allowances is not before me. There is no obligation on this decision to require one.

[name] have found in the appellant’s favour on the second main issue, this is a lack of harm and thus neutral matter which is not capable of weighing against the harm I have found in regard to the first. Material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan, which the scheme conflicts with for the reasons I have set out. I therefore recommend the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.