Appeal 6003867

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.

In the banner heading above, I have used the description of development to reflect that as provided within the Council’s decision notice, as it more accurately describes the proposal.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] (No 59) in regard to privacy; and • Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Chickerell Conservation Area (CA).

The orientations of the appeal building and No 59 is such that the rear elevation of the appeal building is close to the side boundary with No 59 along its entire shared boundary.

Despite the fence boundary treatment, the proposed rear dormer fenestration would have elevated, direct and unmitigated views into the rear garden of No 59. These views would harmfully overlook the whole rear garden, outside seating area, and would allow intrusive, albeit oblique, views into the habitable lounge room, adversely overlooking and affecting the privacy of occupiers of No 59.

There is some existing mutual overlooking at ground floor level between the appeal building and No 59. Furthermore, the historic character of the area does afford some mutual overlooking, as is evidenced by the existing overlooking from both ground floor and first floor fenestration from No 10 and [address] on both 10a and No 59. However, that does not justify the significant increase in overlooking that would be the result of the proposal, which would have a significant and unacceptable effect on the privacy of occupiers of No 59.

The appellant’s appeal statement sets out their willingness to address any perceived additional impact through the use of obscure glazing or alternative opening mechanisms. Whilst a suitably worded condition could enable these suggestions, they would likely result in implications on the living conditions for the occupants of the appeal property in terms of outlook. This element was not considered by the Council.

Consequently, the proposal would harm the living conditions of No 59 in regard to privacy. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the [name], Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) (the Local Plan) policy ENV16 insofar as it seeks to safeguard neighbouring amenity. The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) paragraph 135(f) insofar as it seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The Chickerell Conservation Area Appraisal (2007) (CAA) identifies parts of [address] and [address] as key elements of the historic core, reflecting the settlement’s earlier village form. The appraisal emphasises strong group values and architectural coherence along these parts of the Conservation Area, characterised by the prevailing use of a traditional material palette, including local limestone, Chickerell red brickwork and associated detailing, slate and clay tiles, and areas of render.

The characteristics are exhibited in a group of buildings that frame the junction of [address] and [address], notably the [name] and the adjoining [name], amongst others. The CAA notes the buildings on [address] as forming a strong group which makes an important contribution to the area’s special interest, local distinctiveness, and overall significance, adding that views of the vista towards the [name] public house from this location are notable. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.

The appeal building is located within the CA, close to this noted grouping and within the noted vista. It is constructed using a recessive stone exterior, painted render to the sides and rear, and a small plain tile hipped roof. Whilst it is clearly a modern addition, its recessive materials means that it does not detract from the overall significance of the CA.

The proposed dormer rear roof extension would introduce a large, boxy, and uncharacteristic form of development to the area, contrasting significantly with its notable character. The proposal would dominate the rear roof of the appeal building and harmfully detract from the significance of the CA. Whilst public views would be somewhat limited, they would nonetheless be available from both [address] and [address], and the proposal would also be viewed from other properties within the CA and the wider area.

I acknowledge that the appellant is willing to amend the materials used in the construction of the rear dormer; however, I do not have any detailed plans demonstrating the amendments suggested. It would be possible to impose a condition requiring the use of recessive materials; however, this would not overcome the harm I have identified in terms of the boxy, dominant, and uncharacteristic form of the proposal.

I have been directed to other properties with dormers in the area. However, I do not have any substantive evidence before me to demonstrate against which iteration of the development plan and against which policies these developments were considered, or if they even have permission at all. Consequently, I afford them little weight in my consideration.

Given the scale and location of the proposed development, I consider it would lead to a slight erosion of the significance of the CA and result in minor harm. The harm to the significance of the CA would be less than substantial in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) and would be on the lower end of the scale. Nevertheless, it is a matter of great importance and weight.

I am required to balance this harm against any public benefits of the proposal. I accept that the proposal would create additional family accommodation without extending the existing footprint or increasing the ridge height. However, this is a personal benefit that would not outweigh the harms identified.

I accept that lower carbon emissions could be a public benefit. I have been directed that the proposal allows for improved insulation, opens opportunities for future renewable technologies and that this supports national policy aims for lower carbon development. However, I have not been directed to the national policy stated or how it applies, nor do I have any evidence to demonstrate what insulation would be used and how it improves insulation over the existing situation. Likewise, I have no evidence to demonstrate which future technologies will be used and how they will measurably improve carbon demand. Therefore, I cannot be certain that a public benefit exists, and even if it did exist, given the small scale of the development, it would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

I accept that the appeal site is located within 1.3 miles of the [name] and [name] and within reach of local services and facilities. However, there is no net increase in the number of dwellings and therefore the sustainability of the location, or otherwise, is not a determinative factor.

Consequently, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policies ENV4, ENV10 and ENV12 of the Local Plan, insofar as they seek high quality development that respects local distinctiveness and conserves and enhances the significance of heritage assets.

I recognise that the proposal would align with some parts of the Local Plan and the emerging Dorset Local Plan. However, for the reasons set out above, the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan when taken as a whole. Therefore, compliance with other policies does not outweigh the identified harm, including reducing the reliance on the private motor vehicle; social objectives of sustainable development; and replacement of outbuildings; amongst other things; however, these are neutral considerations that would not outweigh the harm identified.

The appellant asserts that the proposed development is reversible and therefore low impact when compared to other two-storey extensions in the area. I do not consider the proposal to be of such a temporary nature that it is reversible. It represents a permanent physical change to the property, and I therefore give this limited weight.

Whilst the Parish Council nor local residents have objected during the consultation period, these facts do not indicate support. The absence of objections is a neutral factor in the balance and would not be a reason to allow the appeal given the harm I have identified.

The appellant has raised their frustration with the Council’s application of visibility tests of the proposed outbuilding when compared to the rear dormer. The outbuilding is not a reason for refusal, and I have considered the appeal on its own merits.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I 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.