Appeal 6003683

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is located in the Uppermill Conservation Area (CA). I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name].

The appeal site is a terraced dwelling, with living accommodation in the roof space. It is located in the centre of Uppermill. The rear of the property backs onto a private car park accessed from [address]. It is also visible from Village Green.

Limited information has been provided to me regarding the significance of the [name]. I consider that it is derived from the canal system, which passes through Uppermill, and associated historic buildings, which played an important transport role during the industrial revolution. The appeal site comprises a traditional building with coursed gritstone walls and a slate roof. It positively contributes to the character and appearance of the CA, and therefore, to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

The proposed dormer would be a substantial addition to the rear roof of the host dwelling. Whilst the roof of the dormer would slope down, it would not be set down from the ridge line of the host dwelling. It would also have limited recess from the sides. Consequently, the large scale and bold appearance would dominate the roof space and would not relate well to the host property.

Two windows would be featured on the dormer. Neither would fully align with the windows below on the ground or first floor of the host dwelling. In addition, they would be of a different design and size compared to the existing windows. As a result, they would appear discordant.

The proposed dormer would feature grey standing seam zinc cladding, a material which is at odds with the predominantly slate roofed buildings in the vicinity. The appellant has suggested that alternative materials could be secured via a planning condition. However, this would not overcome the harm resulting from the proposed scale and fenestration that I have identified above.

There are a small number of dormer windows in the area, but these are smaller in scale and on larger roof spaces than those of the appeal site. As a result, they do not dominate the roof elevation to the same extent at the appeal scheme would.

The appeal scheme would be clearly visible from various viewpoints along [address] and Village Green. Its stark appearance would jar with this wider street scene. Consequently, the proposed dormer would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, as required by Section 72(1) of the Act. As the proposal would be modest in scale, this would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm.

Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development. The proposal would provide an adapted bathroom which would improve the housing stock and potentially reduce the need for cared for services provided by the Council. However, these public benefits of the development would not outweigh the great weight to be given to the harm to the CA caused by the proposed dormer. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the Framework.

The proposal is intended to provide a bathroom on the same floor as the bedroom to help meet the needs of an occupant of the property who is disabled. Disability is a protected characteristic. The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) at section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires me to have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations. [name] am mindful of the needs of the occupant, it has not been demonstrated that their needs cannot be met by a less harmful scheme. Therefore, the PSED considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified, and following careful consideration of these matters, I am satisfied that the impact of dismissing this appeal is proportionate and justified.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy JP-P1 Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document for Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan 2022- 2039 (2024). It would also conflict with policies 9 and 24 of the Oldham Local Development Framework Development Plan Document – [name] and Development Management Policies (2011). Together, these policies seek to protect the character, identity and visual amenity of the locality; and protect, conserve and enhance heritage assets, amongst other things.

I note the comments regarding the Council’s handling of the planning application. These are matters between the respective parties, and it cannot have any bearing on my determination of this appeal.

The appellant refers to various Government guidance that is now superseded. My decision is based on the most up-to-date national guidance.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, 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.