Appeal 6004259

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed alterations to the roof on: • The character and appearance of [address], and • Living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by way of privacy.

No 23 is a detached bungalow located on the southern side of [address]. It has a narrow frontage and a hipped roof. From the information available to me, it has a single-storey, flat-roofed rear extension and a large storage area with a small rooflight in the existing loft area. The proposed development would involve the conversion of the hipped roof to a double gable-ended ridge, with box-style side dormers extending from front to rear. The front of the dormers would be set back a little from the front elevation, while the rear would extend to the gable elevation. There would be windows in the side elevations of the dormers and a larger window in the rear gable elevation. The loft conversion would enable the creation of two additional bedrooms, a bathroom and some storage spaces.

The Council contends that the proposed side dormers, by reason of siting and scale, would appear visually obtrusive and incongruous, failing to compliment the original design of the dwelling, resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding street scene. Furthermore, by virtue of insufficient separation distances and elevated position of the proposed side dormer windows, the development would create a sense of overlooking and introduce a perceived loss of privacy to the neighbouring properties at Nos 21 and [address]. The appellant contends that the property needs added space to cater for the needs of a child, currently in receipt of [name].

Policy WD5 of the adopted Wirral Local Plan (LP) indicates that proposals for residential extensions should demonstrate that the scale and design of the proposed extension is appropriate having regard to the size of the plot, the relationship with existing buildings on the site and within the street scene, and the impact on amenity of neighbouring properties. In addition, proposed roof extensions should relate well to the design and scale of the property, and be in keeping with both the local context and the established character of the area.

Policy WD23 of the LP indicates that development proposals must take account of the amenity of the development's users and neighbours and, in particular, should avoid direct overlooking, loss of privacy, and detriment to the living conditions of neighbouring residents and the residents of the proposed development.

[address] is a cul-de-sac with an eclectic mix of house types and design, including bungalows, chalet bungalows and houses, some detached and some semi-detached. There is no coherent local context and no clearly defined local character. However, the proposed roof alterations at No 23 would effectively result in a continuous, flat-roofed property. This would dominate the host dwelling and would appear somewhat incongruous in its immediate surroundings.

Given that the adjacent house at No 21 is set forward of the appeal property, and that the bungalow at No 23 extends well back into the plot, I consider that the proposed dormers would not be prominent in the street scene and would not have a significant harmful effect on the character or appearance of the area along [address]. Moreover, the set-back nature of the front of the dormers would reduce its immediate visual impact. Nevertheless, there are no other dormers of this scale and design in the street, and the proposal would result in some limited harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings along with the harm to the character and appearance of the host property itself identified above.

In the light of the above, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and, to a lesser extent, the surrounding area along [address]. On this basis, it would conflict with Policy WD5 of the LP.

The front bedroom within the extended roof space would have windows to each side of the dormer. These windows would have views only over the neighbouring roofs of Nos 21 and 25. However, the rear bedroom would have side windows overlooking the rear of the adjacent dwellings. In the case of No 21, it would appear that only the rear of the proposed two side windows would have a direct view over the amenity space at that property, while in the case of No 25, both proposed side windows would have a view into the private rear amenity space. In both cases, the narrow gap between the properties would result in limited separation distances.

The rear bedroom would have a main window in the gable end, such that the windows in the side dormers would be of a secondary nature. However, the direct views from these side windows would be harmful to the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, and would be in very close proximity to the boundary on each side. Given that these are secondary windows, some amelioration of the harmful privacy issues might be possible by the use of obscure glazing, but if they were to be opening windows, such potential benefits would be extremely limited.

In the light of the above, I find that the proposal would result in harm to the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties on either side, by way of direct overlooking, and that it would, therefore, conflict with Policies WD5 and WD23 of the LP.

I have sympathy with the personal circumstances of the family and recognise a need for additional space. However, I am not convinced that the scheme as submitted would be the only solution to the issue, and I find that the personal circumstances, in this case, do not outweigh the harm that would result to the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings, or to the harm to privacy of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings.

In conclusion, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. In addition, it would be harmful to the privacy of the occupiers of Nos 21 and 25, by way of direct overlooking from side dormer windows. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policies WD5 and WD23 of the LP and, accordingly, I dismiss this appeal.