Appeal 6002735

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the development description detailed on the application form as no evidence has been provided to indicate a change had been agreed.

From my visit, it is evident that drawing CD/01/25/A, ‘[name] and Elevations’, does not accurately reflect the building as it stands. It omits the existing front dormer and shows fenestration to the front, side and rear elevations that differs from what is on site. It also depicts a different front bay window and roof form to the rear extension. In addition, the location plan (unnumbered, dated July 2025), the block and roof plan (unnumbered, dated July 2025) and drawing CRO/04/22, ‘Typical Section’, have not been updated to correspond with the proposal shown on drawing CD/02/25/C, ‘[name] and Elevations’.

Notwithstanding these inconsistencies, the proposed drawings clearly set out the development before me, comprising a rear extension, a pitched roof extended over it, front and rear dormers, a front porch and an increased chimney height. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the development as shown on the proposed plan. Although some elements have been partially constructed, I have considered the scheme as proposed.

In the Council’s Officer Report reference is made to the proposal not meeting certain aspects of the [name] 2025 (ERDC). This design code provides guidance on the design of extensions, roofs and dormer additions. I have carefully considered the conflicts identified by the Council with this guidance in assessing the proposal. However, the ERDC is not prescriptive and cannot anticipate every site‐specific circumstance. While policies in the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024 (the Framework), require such guidance to be considered, they ultimately expect development to achieve a high standard of design that responds to the particular characteristics and context of the site and its surroundings, and which contributes to creating attractive, distinctive places. I have assessed the proposal on this basis and have identified where it accords, and does not accord, with these expectations.

The main issues in determination of the appeal are the proposed development’s effect on: • the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 17) with regard to privacy, outlook and sense of enclosure.

[address] is characterised by a mix of large, detached bungalows and two‐storey and semi‐detached houses, most of which face the street and are set within generously sized plots. Most properties have good sized frontages consisting of spacious driveways and mature and open front gardens, giving the street an attractive, open and verdant character.

The appeal property is a bungalow with a hipped roof and front and rear dormer windows. It is positioned lower than the road and adjacent to similar sized bungalows. As noted above, the proposal would include a rear extension, new and extended main pitched roof with front and rear dormers, raised chimney and the addition of a front porch.

Given that pitched roofs are a feature of several neighbouring properties, the principle of introducing a pitched roof on the appeal property would not, in itself, be out of character. With only a modest increase in the length, height and a set‐back of the proposed roof’s ridge, the shallower pitch that would be created would sit comfortably within the surrounding roofscape and would not appear noticeably different from nearby properties. In the context of the size, scale and spacing of the host property and its neighbours, the enlarged roof and its gable ends would not appear out of character or unduly dominant in the street scene. Although the gables would contain a small number of unaligned and varying‐sized windows, these would be modest features that would not harm the character of the property or the wider area. Moreover, views of the rear roof, including the gables and their windows, would be significantly limited from the road because of the host property’s setback and the screening provided by neighbouring properties. This would further prevent the proposal from having any undue effect on the street scene.

In relation to the proposed rear dormer, although it would be a large addition, its near‐central positioning over the rear extension and its symmetrical form to this would sit comfortably within the roof scale and slope. It would appear as one with the host property’s rear roof and not unduly dominate the property or the street view. [name] balconies doors would be similar in size to the rear extension doors and symmetrically aligned to the centre line of the rear extension’s roof. Moreover, as with the main roof, owing to its position at the rear, it would not be highly visible from the road or other public viewpoints, which would limit any effect it may have on the character of the area.

No specific objections were raised regarding the rear extension, chimney extension, or the proposed front porch and I see no reason to take a different view on these elements.

However, the proposed front dormer, with its large and visually prominent form and two unequally sized windows, would not reflect the scale, proportions or typical dormer design found on neighbouring properties. Its bulk and asymmetrical appearance would create an unbalanced effect on the proposed front roof slope, appearing out of keeping with both the host dwelling and the wider street scene.

On balance, given its prominence in the street scene, the harm arising from the proposed front dormer means that the development would, overall, have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Update 2025 – 2039 (LP) and with Paragraphs 135 and 139 of the Framework, which together require new development to achieve a high standard of design and to preserve local character and appearance.

No 17 is a bungalow neighbouring the appeal property. It has a rear‐facing window positioned close to the shared boundary, and a large side and rear wraparound ground‐floor extension with elevations facing both the appeal site and its own rear garden that are predominantly glazed. A narrow side path runs along the shared boundary, providing access between the front and rear of No 17. The space between the wraparound extension and the boundary comprises paving and garden. The proposal’s rear extension and roof gable would sit approximately 1.7 metres (m) from this boundary and around 8.2m from the side elevation of No 17’s wraparound extension.

No specific objections were raised regarding the effect of the single‐storey rear extension element of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 17, and nothing before me leads me to reach a different conclusion.

Some of the proposed roof‐gable windows would allow views towards No 17’s extension and garden. However, I see no reason to disagree with the Council’s suggested mitigation that these windows be obscure‐glazed and non‐opening above 1.7m. A condition securing this would satisfactorily prevent overlooking and protect the privacy of No 17.

The Juliet‐balcony doors within the proposed rear dormer would face directly down the appeal property’s garden. The lower section of the doors would be largely screened by the balustrade, and in combination with the generous garden depth, any potential perception of overlooking towards No 17’s rear garden would be limited. As such, the development would not unacceptably erode the current level of privacy enjoyed by the occupiers of No 17.

The proposed rear roof gable would project approximately 7.7m beyond the rear elevation of No 17 and would sit broadly in line with the end of its wraparound extension. Even allowing for its pitched form and the set‐back position of the rear dormer, the height and mass of the proposal adjacent to No 17 would be markedly greater than the existing roof, which slopes away from the boundary and has a lower ridge line. As a result, the development would form a substantial and visually dominant feature along the shared boundary. Despite the 8.2m separation to the windows in No 17’s extension, the scale and proximity of the gable would still result in a significant and unacceptable degree of overbearing and a pronounced sense of enclosure affecting the side path, the rear‐facing window, and the adjacent part of the garden of No 17.

A comparison is drawn between the length of No 17’s wraparound extension and the length of the proposal’s rear extension and roof gable. However, No 17’s extension is single‐storey and, as such, is appreciably less imposing than the proposal’s extended roof gable. The comparison therefore carries little weight and does not justify the scheme before me.

It is suggested that the proposal would affect only a small part of No 17’s garden and would provide a sheltered area. However, there is no evidence that the occupiers of No 17 do not make use of the part of the garden affected, or that it requires shelter. This does not therefore justify the harm identified.

Consequently, while the proposal would not harm privacy, it would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 17 with regard to outlook and sense of enclosure. It would be contrary to Policy ENV1 of the LP and Paragraph 135 of the Framework which seek, amongst other matters, for new development to provide a high standard of amenity.

Planning permission (ref. 21/04340/PLF) was granted in February 2022 for a single‐storey rear extension with flat roof, a front porch, an increased roof height, and the addition of front and rear dormers. The appellant states that the approved permission’s work commenced in early 2022 and was largely completed later that year, although the approved main‐roof and dormer alterations were not carried out. It is explained that the roof and dormers were not carried out due to it being considered that a more coherent appearance would be achieved by extending the main roof over both the original dwelling and the rear extension. This preferred roof and dormer change is now being sought through the current application. It is also noted that, as the approved development had commenced, then the roof and dormers could be completed as approved if necessary.

The main parties agree that the rear extension approved under the earlier permission has been built and the completed works do not fully correspond with the approved drawings. Although the Council suggests that these inaccuracies may mean the earlier permission has lapsed, it nevertheless treats the approved scheme as a material consideration and assesses the appeal proposal against it.

From my visit and review of the approved drawings, it is clear that the front porch and bay window differ from both the existing and approved plans. As the appellant confirms, the approved main‐roof and dormer additions have not been constructed, and it appears the increase in chimney height has not been undertaken. While the rear extension reflects the approved footprint and general form, its fenestration and roof configuration do not correspond with either the existing or approved plans.

While there is some disagreement between the main parties as to whether the approved permission was commenced, neither has provided compelling evidence to show whether the significance of the differences between the approved plans and the works undertaken do, or do not, constitute commencement. In the absence of such evidence, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the approved permission clearly remains available as a genuine fallback.

However, even if the approved permission had been commenced and therefore represented a genuine fallback, the degree of harm arising from it would differ from that of the proposal before me. While the approved front dormer would result in similar adverse effects on character and appearance, the more limited extent of the approved roof gable and rear dormer, covering approximately [address] metres (m2) rather than the 79m2 now proposed and not extending over the proposed rear extension, would form a considerably less imposing addition. Even the narrower form of the proposal’s rear dormer would not alter this. As such, the fallback would have a notably lesser impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 17 with regard to outlook and sense of enclosure than the development now proposed.

Consequently, even if the fallback was considered and given significant weight, it would not outweigh or justify the harm that I have found with the proposal.

The appellant indicates that pre‐application discussions with the Council suggested no planning concerns, provided the ridge height matched the approved scheme. However, such advice is informal and cannot bind the Council in determining an application. As such, this does not alter my view regarding the proposal.

The appellant also refers to personal needs and financial circumstances, but no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that these considerations outweigh the harm I have identified. Although the proposal would not result in unacceptable loss of sunlight or daylight to No 17, this does not address the other identified harms.

Furthermore, the absence of objection from the occupiers of No 17 does not render the proposal acceptable. I have assessed the evidence before me and have found harm.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including those raised by the appellant and the Framework, which outweigh that conflict. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.