Appeal 6002885

The appeal is dismissed, and planning permission is refused.

The appeal results from the failure of the Council to determine the planning application within the relevant time period, and as such, there is no formal decision notice. The Council has confirmed in its appeal documentation that, had it been able to do so, it would have refused planning permission.

The planning application was amended to remove a dormer from the outrigger of the dwelling. The evidence shows that the Council accepted this amendment1 at the application stage and I have therefore made my decision on this basis.

In relation to the rooflight on the front roof slope, the Council has not objected to this element of the proposal in its evidence. I also see no reason to raise an objection to this element of the development either, due to its conservation style. My decision will therefore focus on the proposed dormer.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the Whitstable Town Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property is situated within the CA. In accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. 1 Drawing refs A03 E and A04 E.

I have not been provided with evidence by the parties regarding the significance of the CA. I observed on my site visit that the significance of the CA lies in its location in a coastal setting with a mix of commercial and residential properties. In this regard, [address] comprises a linear residential road set near to the coastline. The front façades of the residential properties within [address] often feature a bay window with a front door to the side at ground floor level and two windows set above at first floor level. I observed that the rear of the properties mostly featured uncluttered pitched roofs and outrigger extensions, with modest glazing at first floor level, usually with one window contained within the outrigger and another set on the rear elevation. As such, [address] features a coherent consistency and rhythm in the linear terraced pattern of development and regular architectural features of the properties which positively contributes to the significance of the CA. The appeal property comprises an end of terrace dwelling which shares such common features as described, and therefore positively contributes to the significance of the CA.

The appeal proposal would be situated to the rear of the property meaning it would have no obvious presence in the [address] streetscene. However, I observed that there are other locations where views of the rear roofscape and appeal proposal would be possible and not obscured by buildings or trees. From within the CA along [name] at a higher ground level, side views of the appeal property and the regular and consistent roofscape of [address] is readily apparent from this location. Whilst some of the proposal would be partially obscured owing to the outriggers of the adjacent properties, owing to the height of the dormer set just down from the ridge it would nevertheless still be visible from these vantage points. In addition, whilst [address] is situated outside of the CA, the rear roofscape of the properties along [address] within the CA, including the appeal property, are highly visible from this location.

Whilst the development would use materials to match the existing and a slate to cover the dormer walls, it would introduce a considerable amount of bulk and mass to the rear of the property, interrupting the consistency and rhythm of the rear roofscape within the CA. The flat roof form would be distinctly out of keeping with the pitched roof form of the dwellings along [address], whilst the three large windows on the dormer would appear prominent and cluttered compared to the modest glazing across the rear of the terraces. This would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the CA.

I have been provided with a range of examples which the appellant considers to be similar to the appeal proposal relating to roof extensions within the nearby area 2. However, the majority of these examples are situated away from the site-specific context of the appeal property where views of the rear of the properties do not feature dormers such as the appeal proposal. Whilst the dormer at No [address] by, I observed that this was a smaller side facing dormer and therefore was not directly comparable to the appeal proposal. These examples therefore do not justify or mitigate the harm that I have identified.

The development would therefore cause considerable harm to the CA, whereby it would neither preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. In the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the level of 2 [address], [address], [address], [address], [address], [address], [address], 1 [name], [address], [address] harm identified is less than substantial and lies within the lower end of the spectrum due to the domestic scale of the proposal. Nevertheless, this is a matter which I attach considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The development would provide additional floor space at the dwelling, which would be beneficial to the living conditions of the occupiers of the property. The improvement of a private dwelling within the existing housing stock carries limited weight as a public benefit. As such, the public benefits do not outweigh the harm caused to, and the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The appeal proposal therefore conflicts with Policies DBE3, DBE6, HE1 and HE6 of the Canterbury District Local Plan (2017). These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure development preserves or enhances a conservation area’s special architectural or historic character or appearance, is of a high quality design and is not detrimental to the amenity and character of the locality and streetscape.

It has been suggested that the proposed dormer would meet all the criteria as set out in the General Permitted Development Order, and would be permitted development if the appeal property was not located within a conservation area. Nevertheless, the development is located within the CA and would not preserve or enhance it for the reasons given.

The appellant has raised concern regarding the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is a matter that lies outside the scope of my determination as it does not affect the planning merits of the proposal.

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. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission refused.