Appeal 6004945

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the front, back and side dormers, two side rooflights, change to roof angle and loft conversion.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the first floor rear extension, rear conservatory and front porch and permission is granted for a first floor rear extension, rear conservatory and front porch at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/2508/FA, subject to the following conditions:-

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as they relate to the first floor rear extension, rear conservatory and front porch only: 10-100; 40-100; 40-200; 40-500.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

Notwithstanding any other details shown on the plans hereby approved, the proposed first floor side windows and any other glazing to be inserted at first floor level in the western and eastern side elevations of the extension/dwelling shall, up to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level, be fixed shut (without any opening mechanism) and glazed in obscure glass. The windows/glazing shall thereafter be retained as such.

The Council’s decision refers to the development as ‘First floor rear extension, rear conservatory, front, back and side dormers and 2 side rooflights, change to roof angle and loft conversion and front porch’ and as this describes the proposal more accurately I have used this as the basis for my decision.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on:- • the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area in regards to the proposed dormers and replacement roof; • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers in regards to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a traditional inter-war built detached house of two storeys in a road of dwellings built mainly in the same period to varying designs. Whilst many of the dwellings have been altered and extended, hipped roofs predominate and most retain their original form without the inclusion of dormers. This contributes positively to the spacious, suburban character of the area. There are a few examples of dormer roofs in the surrounding area, some of those are clearly disproportionate to the scale of the dwelling whilst others sit more comfortably within the roof slope.

The Council has not objected to the proposed first floor rear extension, conservatory or porch and from what I have seen those would be acceptable because they are of an appropriate scale, form and design and would be subservient to the existing dwelling.

The proposed roof would not significantly increase the ridge height or angle and it would be very similar in form to the existing roof. As the ridge heights and angles of many of the surrounding roofs vary slightly, the new roof would be easily assimilated into the street scene.

I am also satisfied that the proposed rear dormer would be acceptable as it would not be seen from the street and the side rooflights are small elements that would not be prominent.

However, the proposed front and side dormers would be clearly seen from the street and their siting would therefore be contrary to the Council’s Householder Planning and Design Guidance SPD (2020) which requires that dormers should be located on the rear of dwellings and kept as small as possible. As they are not sufficiently set down from the ridge or back from the eaves, they would appear bulky and disproportionate to the scale of the dwelling. I saw no other front dormers in the immediate vicinity of the site and a dormer in that position would dominate the front roof slope unacceptably. They would therefore result in harm not only to the character and appearance of the dwelling but also to that of the street scene.

The other examples of permissions granted for roof extensions with dormers nearby at nos 69 and 93 differ materially from this proposal in that those dormers are sited only at the rear rather than at the front and side as proposed here. Those do not therefore justify the harm that would be caused by the proposal here.

I conclude then that the front and side dormers, by reason of their siting and scale, would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area. As such, that part of the proposal would be contrary to development plan policies CP9, DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (LP) (2019) which together seek to encourage high quality design and extensions that are subservient in scale to the existing dwelling. The other parts of the proposal would accord with those policies.

The appeal dwelling has been previously extended to the rear with a single storey rear extension. The proposal includes a first floor extension above that with a ground floor conservatory beyond. Together with the proposed roof alteration and rear dormer, there would be an increase in the height and mass of the side elevation when seen from the neighbouring dwelling at no 141 which is sited at a slightly lower ground level.

According to the plans, the rear elevation no 141 is set back by 2 or 3m from the original wall of the appeal dwelling and by several metres more from the existing rear extension. The nearest windows in no 141 are two ground floor and first floor bay windows. As such, the existing outlook already includes the existing side elevation of the appeal dwelling.

However, an attached garage to the side of no 141 provides good separation of that dwelling from the appeal site. From what I saw and on the basis of the submitted plans, it is likely that the proposal would be outside a line of both 45o and 60o from the centre of the bay windows. Therefore, whilst the outlook from those windows would encompass a greater expanse of side elevation than at present, it would mostly be across the rear gardens of that dwelling and the appeal site. As such, the proposal would not be unduly enclosing or dominant when seen from the rear windows of no 141.

No 141 sits on a wide plot with a long rear garden. A large patio extends across the rear elevation and there is another in front of an outbuilding at the end of the garden. There are therefore ample spaces for sitting out away from the side boundary that would not be in close proximity to the proposal which I have found, in any case, would not be unduly overbearing. Therefore, when seen from the garden too, the proposal would not have a significantly adverse impact.

The Council has not objected to the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers on the other side at no 137. At my visit I saw that a gap separates the two dwellings which would prevent any significant loss of light, privacy or outlook. I have also noted that the proposed ground floor extension at no 137 would alter the relationship between the two properties. As such, I agree with the Council that the proposal would not significantly harm the living conditions of those occupiers.

I conclude then that the proposal would not result in significant harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at no 141 and that their outlook would remain acceptable. Neither would it significantly harm the living conditions of other neighbouring occupiers. In this regard, the proposal would comply with development policy DM45 in the LP which seeks to prevent significant adverse impacts from development on the amenities of neighbouring land and property.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed first floor rear extension, rear conservatory and front porch would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. Those parts of the proposal are clearly severable from the rest of the development and I shall therefore issue a split decision. The appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to those parts of the proposal.

In addition to the standard commencement condition, a condition is necessary requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans (except for the front, back and side dormers, side rooflights, change to roof angle and loft conversion), to provide certainty. A condition for matching external materials is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the site and the area. The restriction of first floor side windows to be obscure glazed and non-opening is necessary given the proximity of the neighbouring dwellings and in the interests of the living conditions of those occupiers.

[name] have found that no harm would arise from the rear dormer, two side rooflights and change to the roof angle, those parts are not clearly severable from the front and side dormers and I am therefore unable to allow those elements under a split decision. The proposed front and side dormers would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. The appeal should therefore be dismissed insofar as it relates to the front, back and side dormers, side rooflights, change to roof angle and loft conversion.