Appeal 6003704

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. The main issue for which is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is one of a pair of semi-detached two-storey dwellings that appears to have been extended at single storey to the side and rear. The street comprises similar properties. They are traditionally designed, featuring two-storey bay windows with steep gabled roofs to the front. By virtue of limited visible alterations, defined spacing between and a setback from the highway with modest front gardens and driveways, there is a pleasant consistency and originality to the street which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed rear dormer window would be set down from the ridge and up from the eaves. However, it would occupy almost the entire width of the roof slope. This would result in an overly large, incongruous and visually dominant addition that would substantially and unacceptably erode the legibility of the original roof shape. The effect would be exacerbated by the misalignment of the proposed windows with the fenestration below, introducing an element of discord within the elevation.

While the dormer would not be prominent from public vantage points, it would be clearly visible from the rear gardens and upper floors of neighbouring dwellings. The visibility from these private viewpoints does not diminish the harm, particularly in a context where the rear roofscape along this side of the street is currently free from dormer development. In this setting, the proposed addition would appear as an isolated and intrusive feature, thereby harming the character and appearance of the area.

I have not been provided with sufficient detail about the design, context or planning history of other cited examples to draw meaningful comparisons. From my own observations, dormers are not characteristic of the locality and appear only sporadically. Accordingly, these examples do not establish such a precedent that would support allowing the appeal.

Consequently, the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would thus conflict with Policy CS7 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part: [name] 2012-2027, 2016, Policies DM17 and DM20 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2012-2027, 2023, and guidance contained in the Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document, 2007. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure new development is well designed, appropriate in terms of scale, mass and materials, and enhances the character and appearance of the local area.

I appreciate the personal needs of the appellant to create their forever family home. However, when set against the need to safeguard the character and appearance of the area in the public interest, and in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development could not be achieved in a less harmful way, only limited weight can be attributed to this personal need. Such that it would not be sufficient to make the proposals acceptable.

Whilst the apparent lack of engagement from the Council has caused frustration, these matters are between the main parties and do not affect my consideration of the main issue. Any concerns relating to conduct are best addressed through direct engagement with the Council, utilising any complaints procedure that it may have. The absence of harm to neighbouring amenity is a neutral matter and thus could not weigh in the scheme’s favour.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.