Appeal 6004301

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the planning application form, as there is no evidence before me that the appellant agreed to that contained on the Council’s decision notice.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area.

The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow within a small cul-de-sac characterised by bungalows of varied designs, but with a generally modest scale and simple dual-pitched roof forms. The dwelling has previously been extended to the side, with that addition appearing subordinate to the original building through its lower ridge height. It forms part of a wider housing estate of bungalows and 2- storey houses, following an undulating topography. This allows views across the estate where the consistent presence of repeated house types and their dual pitched roof forms can be appreciated. In this way, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the harmonious character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would raise the ridge height of the original bungalow and the existing side extension to create a continuous roof form. The increase would be modest and would sit between the lower ridge height of the adjacent bungalow to the north and the taller two-storey dwellings on [address] to the south. In these respects, the increased roof height would not appear abrupt or dominant, nor would it unduly disrupt the character of the street scene.

The proposal also includes a rear dormer window. The Householder Design Guide (HDG) 2012 advises that dormers should be set down from the ridge, up from the eaves and set in from the sides and [my emphasis] that they should be small, discrete additions with a substantial area of the original roof retained. It further advises that dormers should not dominate the roof plane in which they are sited.

In this case, the proposed dormer would extend across almost the full width of the rear roof slope of the original dwelling and onto the newly formed side extension, that would replace the existing conservatory. As a result of its scale, siting and flat-roofed form, it would read as a large, first floor rear addition, rather than as a subordinate roof feature. Any set in from the edges of the roof would be extremely marginal, such that the dormer would overwhelm the original rear roof slope, eroding its original form and resulting in a dominant and incongruous addition. Even if the proposed facing materials could be changed from brick to tile by planning condition, it would not remedy the harm arising from the overall form and scale of the proposed dormer addition.

The dormer would not be overtly visible from within [address]. However, I observed that there would be a glimpsed view from [address], between dwellings and ancillary buildings. More significantly, the dormer would be apparent in private views from neighbouring dwellings to the rear and side. In any event, limited public visibility does not justify an addition which fails to respect the character and proportions of the host building.

While there are some dormer windows visible in the surrounding area, I have no evidence of the specific circumstances that led to their construction, including whether they were granted planning permission1. In any case, the prevailing roofscape remains characterised by simple dual-pitched forms, such that dormer windows do not represent a defining or overriding characteristic of the area. Furthermore, I am mindful that each proposal must be considered on its own merits against current local planning policy and guidance.

[name] have found the increased roof height to be acceptable, the harm identified in relation to the rear dormer remains. As both elements form part and parcel of the proposed loft conversion, a split decision is not possible. Taken as a whole, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area. It would conflict with Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (2019) and saved Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (2006). The scheme would also fail to accord with the guidance set out within the HDG. These policies and guidance seek to ensure that alterations are of an appropriate scale and design, having regard to the existing building and its wider context. The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure that development is well designed and sympathetic to local character.

The appellant contends that a rear dormer and other extensions could be constructed under permitted development (PD) rights afforded to the dwelling. I have had regard to the Mansell judgment which confirms that fallback schemes are capable of being material considerations, but only where they are realistic and genuinely likely to occur2. The fallback would also need to be equally or more 1 The list provided in the appellant’s planning statement does not include planning application reference numbers, decision notices, plans or officer reports to explain whether they have planning permission and the reasons for development being granted. 2 Mansell v Tonbridge and [name] & others [2017] [name] 1314. harmful than the scheme for which planning permission is sought. In addition, caselaw also establishes that the weight, if any, which should be given to a particular consideration, is a matter for the decision maker’s discretion3.

There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that PD rights for roof extensions exist at the appeal site and a certificate of lawfulness of proposed development has not been granted. I cannot therefore be certain that there is a realistic prospect that a PD dormer roof extension may take place. Moreover, the permitted development rights for dormer windows would only allow the enlargement of the roof beyond the face of any external wall of the original dwelling. Neither could it exceed the highest part of the existing roof. [name] rights do exist at the appeal site, the fallback position would be smaller in overall scale and the degree of harm less than the proposal before me, as it would have to take place within the original roof space only.

It is also suggested that the volume of the proposed addition would be less than that of a side and rear PD extension4. Even if that were the case, it is the precise form, scale and position of the proposed dormer window with which I have found harm. The appellant’s suggested side and rear extension, if permissible under PD rights, would appear to be single storey and with a dual pitched roof form. Any fallback position in respect of this type of extension would thus be more sympathetic to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings. For these reasons, I attach limited weight to the suggested fallback positions.

The acceptability of the scheme with regard to privacy, daylight and retention of garden space are neutral matters which weigh neither for, nor against, the proposal.

For the above reasons, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no other considerations of sufficient weight that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.