Appeal 6002694

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow with accommodation in the roof located in a residential cul-de-sac. To the rear, there is an existing dormer extending across the majority of the rear roof slope.

The property is located within an area which is residential in character. Dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the appeal property are broadly similar in form and scale. Notably, although there are rear dormers present on a number of properties, front roof slopes are predominantly simple pitched forms with alterations largely limited to the addition of rooflights. Consequently, there is a pleasant uniformity to the roofscape in the cul-de-sac, notwithstanding that the topography of the area results in some variation in ridge heights. While there are dormers on the front roof slopes of 11 and [address], they are modest in scale, extending across a limited proportion of the roof slopes of each property. Their pitched roofs also complement the surrounding pitched roof forms. As such, they do not detract from the broad uniformity of the roofscape or form a dominant part of the character of the area.

The proposed dormers would be located on the front roof slope, set back from the front elevation and set in from both sides. While they would appear subordinate to the existing roof and broadly proportionate to the scale of the dwelling, cumulatively, they would cover a substantial proportion of the front roof slope.

In this regard, even though the materials would match those of the existing property, the dormers would appear as prominent additions to the host building due to their scale and bulk. They would detract from the character and appearance of the host property by reason of the introduction of substantially-sized flat-roofed forms which would contrast starkly with the simple pitched front roof slope. Moreover, due to their scale and form, the dormers would appear incongruous in the context of the surrounding built form. They would form visually discordant and intrusive features, detracting from the current pleasant uniformity of the roofscape in the cul-de-sac.

It is clear that the character and appearance of the cul-de-sac has evolved over time, including through the addition of rear dormers, front rooflights and in two instances modest front dormers. However, as I have described above, these additions have not undermined the broad uniformity of the roofscape of [address]. The changes that have occurred do not, therefore, lead me to an alternative conclusion regarding the impact of the proposal.

The appellants highlight [address] as an example of a flat roof dormer to the front roof slope of a dwelling in the local area. The appeal proposal and the recent development at No 93 have some commonalities in terms of form and scale. However, [address] comprises properties with a variety of architectural styles, scales and forms, including other properties with front dormers. This differs substantially from the context of the appeal site and does not, therefore, provide a clear justification for the development before me, which I must consider on its own merits.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policies 69 and 72 of the City and District of St Albans District Local Plan Review (adopted 1994) and Policies ESD1 and ESD2 of the Harpenden Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2033 (made 2019). Among other things, these policies seek development which is visually attractive, relates to the domestic scale, character and appearance of the street, and is compatible with the original building.

The Council’s Delegated Report confirms that there would no unacceptable loss of light, outlook or privacy to neighbouring properties, sufficient garden space would be retained, and there would be no negative impact on existing car parking arrangements or highway safety. Nevertheless, an absence of harm in these matters is neutral in my determination of the appeal. Similarly, the absence of objections from neighbours is a neutral factor in my decision.

The proposal would provide additional internal space to support family living within an area where the appellants and their children benefit from established social and educational networks and where moving house is neither economically viable nor practical. [name] am sympathetic to this situation, and the best interests of the children is a primary consideration to which I afford considerable weight, the benefits of the proposal would primarily be personal to the appellants. As in general planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, these personal benefits do not outweigh the harm that I have identified. Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal before me is the only way in which the desired benefits could be achieved.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.