Appeal 6006019

The appeal is dismissed.

Following the refusal of planning permission, the appellant has submitted a revised proposed plan as part of the appeal.

I have considered the revised proposed plan in consideration of the Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 judgement. The revised proposed plan amends the internal layout to provide a larger communal kitchen and living area but does not amend the proposal. As such, I have considered whether accepting the revised plan would cause procedural unfairness to interested parties. Whilst the Council has not provided a statement and has not therefore commented on the revised proposed plan, comments have been provided from the Council’s Housing Projects and [name].

As the revised proposed plan does not amend the proposed development from that seen within the application, this evidence does not make a substantive change to the proposal as the description of development remains the same. Objections were made to the original application, and a further objection was received following notification of the appeal. Nonetheless, the acceptance of the revised proposed plan would not unfairly deprive those entitled to be consulted on the application, the opportunity to make a representation. My decision is therefore based on the revised proposed plan 42SP-G-AQ-002B.

The site is within the Zone of Influence of the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The Council have concluded that the proposal would not lead directly or indirectly to a material adverse effect whereby mitigation could justifiably be sought. The proposal would therefore be screened out of an Appropriate Assessment, and I see no reason to disagree with this finding.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and • Whether the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for future occupants.

The appeal property is a two storey; end of terrace dwelling located in a terrace of four dwellings in a predominantly residential area. The dwelling has a loft conversion with a small dormer window with pitched roof located on the rear roof slope. A two storey and single storey rear wing protrude into the rear garden adjacent to the existing garage. The neighbouring properties are a mix of terraced and semi-detached dwellings, some of which have off-street parking.

Most of the neighbouring properties have not been substantially altered, extended, or have dormer windows in their rear roof slopes. The uniform nature of the dwellings leads to a structured character and appearance of the area. The property, as a dwelling that has not been substantially altered makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The existing dormer window would be replaced with a large flat roofed boxed dormer window to the rear and a small, pitched roof dormer window to the front. None of the adjacent properties have box dormer windows on their rear roof slopes. The proposed box dormer would occupy most of the rear roof slope with minimal roof remaining visible.

Due to the gap between the appeal property and its neighbour at number 44, the rear dormer would be visible from the public realm on [address]. It would also be visible to occupiers of properties to the rear. Together with the smaller front dormer, the revised roof form of the property would materially alter to the property’s appearance to its disbenefit. Unlike the proposed front dormer window, the addition of the rear box dormer would therefore be out of proportion with the scale of the existing roof. Consequently, this would unbalance the roof and harmfully add discordant built form.

The rear box dormer window would dominate the overall character and appearance of the property and appear as an incongruous addition, detracting from and eroding the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal would fail to comply with Policy SD4 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham, and [name] (2017) (CS) and Policies A1 and A9 of the Gloucester City Plan (2023) (GCP). These policies, amongst other things, require development to respond to and respect the character of the site and its surroundings; be of a scale appropriate to the site and be of good design. The proposal would also fail to accord with the [name] (2008).

The Council’s officer report includes a table comparing the proposed bedroom sizes against the [name] (NDSS) as adopted within Policy F6 of the GCP. This table indicates that all seven bedrooms would exceed the NDSS requirements. As such, the proposal would provide sufficient bedroom space. Also, an area to the rear of the property of around 110m 2 would provide an appropriately sized private rear garden for use by the residents of the house in multiple occupation (HMO).

The original proposed plan indicated that a communal kitchen, living and dining area of around 23m2 would be provided, which fell below the Council’s guidelines for HMO’s outlined within the ‘Houses in [name] – A guide for applicants and decision takers (August 2023)’ document (HMO Guidance). The revised proposed plan has removed an en-suite bathroom from this area which has increased the internal floor area to 26m2, which would comply with the Council’s guidelines.

The area now meets the size requirement, and I am therefore satisfied that sufficient space exists for all seven occupants to occupy the space at the same time, if required. Based on the revised plan, the lounge area can seat five people with a further two accommodated within the small dining area. There would also be sufficient space in the kitchen where two cooking hobs would be provided along with a sink, dishwasher, and a fridge freezer.

Consequently, the proposal would accord with the requirements of Policies SD4, SD10 and SD14 of the CS and Policy A1 of the GCP. These policies, amongst other things, seek to secure development that would protect the living conditions of future occupiers, provide outdoor amenity space, be well designed and support healthy living conditions. The proposal would also accord with the HMO Guidance.

The appellant asserts that a box dormer similar to that proposed could be built under permitted development (PD) rights. However, such details are not before me, it is unclear whether PD rights exist and the fallback position has not been secured in the form of a Lawful Development Certificate. For significant weight to be afforded to the fallback position there needs not only to be a real possibility of it being carried out, but it would also need to be equally or more harmful than the appeal scheme. However, whilst there is more than a theoretical possibility that this could occur, the fallback would only be as equally harmful as the proposed development. As such I can only attribute modest weight to this matter.

Despite finding that the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers, and attributing modest weight to a fallback position, the proposed flat roof boxed dormer window would have a demonstrably harmful effect on the character and appearance of both the appeal property and the surrounding area.

Consequently, the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan and the appeal should therefore be dismissed. [planning inspector] (INSPECTOR)