Appeal 6003489

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a hip to gable loft conversion with 3 rooflights to front and rear dormer at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/25/1250/HH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos ELA1/A, ELA/2A, ELA/3A, ELA/6A, ELA/13A, ELA/14A, ELA/18A.

The description of development used above is taken from the decision notice, rather than the application form, as this more accurately describes the proposal in its entirety.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed rear dormer on the character and appearance of the host property.

Policy HOU11(d) of the East Herts District Plan 2018 (the DP) states that roof dormers may be acceptable if appropriate to the design and character of the dwelling and its surroundings. It adds that dormers should generally be of limited extent and modest proportions, so as not to dominate the existing roof form. The proposed rear dormer would occupy nearly the full width of the property, and include only very modest set backs from the existing eaves and ridgeline. As a consequence it would be a substantial addition which would dominate the existing roof form and would be contrary to Policy HOU11(d).

Despite this, the site lies in an area of residential properties of varying character and design, displaying a variety of roof forms and extensions including flat roofed rear dormers. While many of the nearby roof extensions may pre-date the current development plan, together they contribute to an area of varied character and there is very little consistency in the roof forms on the street. The appeal site adjoins tall woodland to the rear including conifer trees, through which there would be very limited, if any, visibility of the rear dormer. The full extent of the dormer would therefore be apparent from only a few private viewpoints, in nearby gardens. From the road, the depth of the dormer would be visible only in limited glimpses through the gap between no.108 and 110. The visual effects of the dormer’s dominance on the property would therefore be very limited.

Considered in combination, these factors lead me to conclude that the site specific circumstances of the appeal site amount to material considerations of sufficient weight to make a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

The Council’s Officer Report sets out the reasons why the proposed hip to gable extension and proposed rooflights are acceptable, drawing on the existing lack of symmetry in this semi detached pair and the varied character of the area. Based on the findings of my site visit I agree with those conclusions.

In addition to the statutory time limit condition, I have imposed a condition listing the approved drawings to provide clarity to all parties. As those drawings include annotations of the facing materials and projection of the rooflights, I do not consider further conditions covering those matters are necessary.

For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.