Appeal 6005724

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed front dormer on the character and appearance of the host property and street scene.

The appeal site is a two-storey, mid-terraced dwelling located within an established residential area. The surrounding properties are predominantly brick-built Victorian terraces of a similar design, with a strong rhythm to the front elevations, traditional pitched roofs, and uniform detailing. Many dwellings retain original architectural features and none of the houses in this part of the street have dormers on the front roof slope. There is a uniformity to the street scene, with the terraces having a cohesive and uninterrupted roofscape, which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the street scene.

The proposed front dormer would occupy almost the full width of the host dwelling. It would be set up from the front eaves by a nominal distance and would also be set down from the ridge of the main roof by a similar distance. Its vertical surfaces would be tile-hung to match the existing roof covering.

Despite being of matching materials, due to its scale and form the proposed roof extension would be a prominent, incongruous and intrusive addition to the street scene. It would be a bulky and dominant addition which would relate poorly to the host building, in terms of both its massing and fenestration pattern. It would disrupt the established roofline of the terrace and would harm the uniformity of the buildings in this part of the street.

The proposed front dormer would be contrary to the [name] Planning Document (2018), which advises that extensions should be visually subordinate to, and not dominate, the original dwelling. It also advises that front extensions should have a positive impact on the street and not look out of place.

For these reasons, the proposed front dormer would harm the character and appearance of the host property and street scene. It therefore conflicts with Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016), which seeks to deliver development of high design quality, which is effectively integrated with its surroundings.

The proposed front dormer is also contrary to paragraphs 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which taken together seek to deliver development which adds to the overall quality of the area, and is visually attractive as a result of good design.

The appellant states that there are a number of full width, front dormers to identical terraced properties in the vicinity, although has not provided details of any specific cases. At my site visit, examples of large front dormers in any nearby surrounding streets were not immediately obvious, although I did observe such dormers on [address].

I do not know the full details of these examples and therefore, I cannot be certain as to the circumstances of their construction, but they illustrate the impacts that such development can have on the character of the street scene. In any case, they are visually separated from the terrace of which the appeal property forms a part, by the intervening [address] which is of a different scale to the surrounding development. Furthermore, each planning proposal is assessed on its own merits and I have come to a decision based on the circumstances of the case.

The appellant states that the proposed development would provide an additional bedroom to the property in an affordable manner, making more efficient use of the building. Whilst this may be the case, it does not outweigh the harm I have found on the main issue.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.