Appeal 6005413

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion including the addition of a rear box dormer and a hipped roof side dormer. Roof replacement of existing ground floor single storey side extension due to water ingress at [site address] , [name], Bath [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/04397/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos (3)001 Location and Block Plan, (3)005 [name], (3)006 [name] & Roof Plan and (3)007 [name].

The main issue is the effect of the proposed side, hipped roof dormer on the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area.

The appeal property is located on a residential street and is half of a pair of semi-detached houses located at the end of [address], a cul-de-sac.

[address] contains a wide variety of house styles which include bungalow, two-storey, detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. Existing roofs include front and side dormers.

At the end of the cul-de-sac, beyond a 90-degree bend in the road, there is a short section, where the appeal site is located, where the style of houses is more uniform, being stone faced two-storey semi-detached properties with hipped roofs. However, even in this short section of [address], clear symmetry is not a prevailing characteristic. Some properties have side extensions, and some have roof windows. No [address] (No 38) has a two-storey side extension which is slightly set back from the front elevation, but clearly visible from some parts of the road.

A modern rear dormer extension at No [address] (No 29), constructed of different material to the rest of the roof, is visible from parts the road. The character and appearance in the immediate vicinity of the appeal property is also affected by views to the nearby Mulberry Park development behind which is of more contemporary design.

There is a side, hipped roof dormer at [address] (No 30), similar to the proposed appeal side dormer. The side elevation is prominent as you walk or drive around the 90-degree bend. From the front of the building, the existing dormer is less prominent. The dormer is of modest scale and is subservient to the host building. It is also sympathetic to the existing roof style. The wide variation in style of properties in the area, including those visible at Mulberry Park, is such that small subservient extensions do not appear incongruous. This dormer has not eroded the character of the dwelling or surrounding area.

The appellant has made reference to a recent planning permission at No [address] (No 2). This dormer, which is similar to the appeal side dormer, has now been constructed. The dormer is prominent as you travel along [address] in the direction of [address]. This house is of a similar style to the appeal property but is part of the only pair of semi-detached houses of this style on this section of the road, and at a location where there is a significant variation in house and roof styles. Whilst not directly comparable with the appeal proposal, this dormer also does not appear incongruous to the dwelling or surrounding area.

The appeal proposal would be similar to that at Nos 2 and 30. The side elevation of the house, where the dormer is proposed, is only visible from a very small part of the road. It is visible from No 39 and [address] (No 41), but the proposal will be significantly less visible than the nearby dormer at No [address] scene.

The council contend that the proposal would unbalance the roof, appearing incongruous and thereby adversely affecting the appearance of the host building and the cul-de-sac. However, the side dormer would not be prominent and would appear subservient to the main building. The design is complementary and proportionate to the host building. Symmetry is not a defining characteristic of the road as a whole or in the short section within which the appeal site sits. There have been numerous modest additions to properties within the road, including to roofs, which are now part of the character and appearance of the host properties and the area. Views to the nearby Mulberry Park development also contribute to the character of the area.

Consequently, the proposal would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area, and therefore is not in conflict with policies CP 6 of the Bath and [name] (2014), D1, D2 and D4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan 2011-2029 [name] & Placemaking Plan (2017) and policy D5 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan [name] and Placemaking Plan incorporating the Local Plan Partial Update (2023). All these policies relate to the impact of development and include requirements for developments to be well defined and detailed and to maintaining and enhancing the character and appearance of host buildings and areas. Policy D3 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan 2011-2029 [name] & Placemaking Plan (2017) relates to ensuring places are well connected and is not determinative to this appeal.

The appeal site is located within the setting of a World Heritage Site (Bath) and consideration must be given to the effect of the proposal on the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site (WHS). As noted in The City of Bath World Heritage Site Setting Supplementary Planning Document (2013), the three main aspects of the setting are: (i) the landscape and townscape; (ii) views to and from the WHS and key heritage assets; and (iii) historical buildings, sites and features associated with the WHS.

Having regard to the location, size and appearance of the proposal, it would not result in harm to the outstanding universal value of the WHS. This lack of harm weighs neutrally and does not amount to consideration or alter my overall conclusion on the main issue.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permission.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.