Appeal 6005472

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is situated in a mixed residential area that is characterised by a diverse range of predominantly two and two and half storey detached and semi-detached houses of various ages and styles. Roof designs vary and include a combination of hips, barn hips, gables, broken roof lines, and dormer windows. This together with often generous sized plots and soft landscaping within the front and rear gardens contributes to the informal and suburban character and appearance of the locality.

The appeal property occupies a prominent position adjacent to the junction of [address] and [name]. It is one of three traditionally designed modern houses that front onto [name], and its side elevation is set back behind a side garden that faces [address]. The main roof of the appeal dwelling has barn hips to the front and rear and the lower side wing similarly has a barn hip as well as a cat slide roof facing [name].

Elsewhere within [name], there are dwellings with front roof projections along with pitched and flat roofed front and side dormers of various sizes. Typically, they sit materially lower than the main ridge lines and/or are set in from the sides of the roof slopes. There are a number of larger rear dormers that project close to the ridge line, although they are largely hidden from the street scene. As such, their impact on the character and appearance of the host dwellings is limited from within the public realm.

On the opposite side of [address] is a row of substantial period houses with a combination of pitched roof front dormer windows and more modest flat roofed side dormers. They are set within deep roof slopes which include front gables, multiple chimneys, and crested ridge lines. These roofs are visually well balanced, ornate and attractive.

The appellant has referred to some recent planning approvals for dormer extensions within [address], although no details of their siting, size and design have been provided. In the absence of such details, I am unable to compare them to the proposed dormer window, although they do demonstrate that, in principle, dormer extensions are acceptable in the immediate area.

Various permitted development rights as set out in the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development (England) Order 1995 (As amended) were removed when the appeal dwelling was permitted in 2011.1 Conditions 12 and 13 were imposed specifically to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy at first floor level and are not directly relevant to the appeal proposal. Conversely, condition 14 effectively removes permitted development rights relating to any enlargements, improvements or alterations to the dwellings or the construction of ancillary outbuildings. The reason for this condition was to protect the amenities of adjacent occupiers.

For this reason, the proposal requires planning permission and needs to be assessed on its individual merits and in accordance with the prevailing planning policies, having regard to all other material considerations. This includes the existence of dormer windows in the local area, the wider availability of permitted development rights and the reason for imposing condition 14 of the appeal referred to above.

Together and amongst other things, Policy QP3 of the Borough Local Plan 2013 – 2033 (LP) and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), seek to ensure that new development is of high quality design. It should respect and enhance the character of the environment paying particular regard to urban grain, scale, bulk, massing, and materials. New development should incorporate interesting frontages and design details to provide visual interest.

The Borough Wide Design Guide 2020 (DG) is consistent with this. It explains that changes to roofscapes can have a detrimental impact on character, especially when visible from the street scene. [name] 10.5 advises that roof alterations should be sympathetic and subservient to the design of the main building. They should not undermine the visual amenities of the area. Dormer extensions should be set back from the sides and ridgeline of the roof and not occupy more than half the width and depth of the roof slope.

The proposed side dormer extension would project close to the main ridge line and the upper part of the existing front and rear barn hips. Its shallow hipped crown roof would sit above the ridge line of the side wing and the front and rear barn hip eaves lines. It would appear disproportionately shallow, poorly proportioned and disjointed when compared to the existing roof form. Due to their size and projection beyond the windows in the existing side elevation, the proposed larger outer 1 Appeal reference: APP/T0355/A/11/2152605 windows would add to the perceived width and top heavy appearance of the proposed dormer extension. Finally, due to their proximity to the ridge line and depth, the cheeks of the dormer extension would appear top heavy and would materially detract from the proportions of the roof in views from the street scene. This is notwithstanding the use of slate tiles on the roof and walls of the proposed dormer extension.

I appreciate that the proposed dormer extension would sit behind and be partially screened by the existing two storey side wing. However, that wing sits at a materially lower level and its lower eaves heights would emphasise the height of the proposed dormer extension. Also, as indicated above the proposed dormer extension would fail to respect or blend in with the character and appearance of the existing side wing.

As a result of these factors, the proposed side dormer extension would materially and unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings.

Conversely, the proposed rooflights are modest in size and form and in themselves would not have a materially adverse impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling and its surroundings. Whilst the proposed side facing roof light would face towards 1a [name], it would serve a bathroom and could be obscure glazed and have restricted opening. This would prevent any loss of privacy for the occupiers of No.1a and is a matter that could be dealt with by condition.

Overall, I find that the harm that would be caused by the proposed dormer extension would clearly outweigh the absence of harm resulting from the proposed roof lights; the benefits for the appellant and their family that would result from the additional accommodation; and the other material considerations referred to in paragraph 9 of this decision. Further, this harm is not a matter that could be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of conditions.

I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Accordingly, it would conflict with LP Policy QP3, paragraph 135 of the Framework and [name] 10.5.