Appeal 6003945

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and wider area.

The appeal site is a dormer bungalow located in a predominantly residential area. Neighbouring properties are detached dormer bungalows and two storey houses. The host property has a small dormer addition to the roof, which is side on when viewed from [address].

The proposed dormer would be significant in size, and a substantial addition to the roof elevation of the host dwelling. Although it is set in from the sides, this would only be by a small amount. It would also have limited set down from the ridgeline. As a result, it would have a stark and bold appearance, which would dominate the roof of the host dwelling and jar with the wider street scene.

The Council has drawn my attention to the [name] and Domestic Outbuildings Supplementary Planning Document (January 2021). It provides specific guidelines for dormer additions to ensure that they are of an appropriate scale. These include setting down from the ridgeline by 0.5m, setting in from the eaves by 0.5m and setting in from the side edges of the roof by 1m. The proposal would not meet these guidelines.

I accept that timber boards are a feature of the character of the area, however, they are not featured on the host dwelling. On this basis, the proposed dormer would be an incongruous addition, that would not relate well to the host dwelling.

Whilst the proposal would be partially screened by hedging and a mature tree, it would be visible from various viewpoints along [address] and parts of [address] due to its large size. I acknowledge that the appeal site is not in a conservation area or in close proximity to a listed building. However, the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) requires a good standard of design in all areas.

The appellant has brought to my attention that there is a fallback, as should different materials be used, a dormer of this size would be permitted development. In the absence of a Certificate of Lawfulness, I cannot be certain of this. Regardless, it seems to me that a dormer built from materials that match the host dwelling would relate better and would not be such an incongruous addition. Therefore, whilst it may be a possibility that the works could go ahead, given that this would be less harmful than the proposed dormer, I give minor weight to the fallback.

The appellant has made reference to various dormer windows and timber boards on dwellings in the vicinity of the appeal site. I was able to view these during my site visit. The dormer at No [address] was timber clad, however, it was smaller in form and did not dominate the roof space as this proposal would. In addition, timber boards were a feature of the host dwelling. Other dormers at No’s 40, 38, 36, [address] were built from different materials to timber cladding and were smaller in form. These are, therefore, not comparable to this proposal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property and wider area. It would conflict with Policy ENV6 of the [site address] Local Plan Part One: [name] and Policy DM3 of the [site address] Local Plan Part Two: [name] and [name]. These policies, amongst other things, require proposals to respect local character of buildings and contribute positively to the character of the area.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.