Appeal 6007209

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal includes various alterations to the roof. However, the Council has only identified the rear dormer as harmful within its reason for refusal. There is nothing before me to indicate that any other part of the proposal might be contentious.

Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

The host dwelling is within an established residential estate where houses are closely built in groups of similar designed properties and interlinked by spine roads. The spine roads are generally wide with tree lined verges. This provides visual relief between the estate roads which are narrower and more densely developed. [address] is one such estate road and the host dwelling is positioned with [address], a spine road, running along its rear boundary.

The houses on [address] are traditional 2 storey dwellings in a mix of finishes. The predominant roof form is dual pitched with gabled sides, and the majority of properties have an additional front facing gabled feature. The host dwelling is very much in keeping with the character and appearance of [address].

Due to its location along [address], the rear elevation specifically at roof level, is visually apparent, as are those of the neighbouring properties. This provides the residential appearance and suburban character for this part of [address].

There are examples of roof alterations in the immediate vicinity of the host dwelling. However, these are predominantly limited to solar panels and roof lights, or occasionally modest pitched dormers, often in pairs.

The proposed dormer is a box dormer which would replace the majority of the rear roof slope. It would have solar panels on the roof and 3 windows facing out towards [address].

This form of dormer would significantly alter the host dwelling’s roof and add considerable bulk to its form when viewed from the rear. The distribution and shape of the proposed windows are not uniform across the dormer nor would their respect the proportions and positioning of the existing windows in the rear elevation. Further the proposed roof fascia on the dormer is significantly deeper than those on the host dwelling. In combination, therefore, these elements would create a dominating and overbearing extension which would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

Due to the highly visible nature of the rear elevation from [address], the incongruity of the proposed dormer would be apparent and significantly out of character with the plain pitched roofs and modest pitched dormers nearby, thereby it would also fail to respect the locality’s character and appearance.

The appellant considers the dormer to be within the parameters set in the [site address] Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). However, on page 36 of the SPD it states that box dormers do not represent good design, and do not comply with the requirements of the Council’s design policies. It does go on to confirm that where there is appropriate justification and a box dormer is the only viable option the afore mentioned parameters (design principles) should be followed. However, although the appellant’s need for flexible, adaptable family living and the benefits of solar panel installation have been noted, it has not been demonstrably evidenced that the proposed dormer is the only viable way to achieve these outcomes.

The appellant has identified examples of similar dormers within the wider residential estate, which were observed during the site visit. These are sporadically located throughout the estate so do not form a coherent style or character and are generally set back from the road. Nevertheless, when visible it is clear they are at odds to the otherwise largely uniform roof forms surrounding them, and suboptimal design elsewhere is not a justification for the continuation of such practices.

It is therefore found that the proposed dormer would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would fail to comply with the [site address] Local Plan: [name] (2013) Policy CS1, and the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) Policies PSP1 and PSP38, insofar as they seek high quality design which respects and responds positively to the characteristics of the host dwelling and its surroundings. Further it is not found the proposal would follow the design principles of the SPD.

The Council has not identified any harm in terms of the principle of extending the host dwelling, the living conditions of occupants of both the host dwelling and neighbouring properties, highway safety, and parking. However, by definition, a lack of harm cannot weigh for or against the proposal.

The public support gained by the propose has not highlighted anything which would outweigh the harm identified in the main issue.

It is understood that the appellant considers the proposal to comply with permitted development criteria. However, as permitted development rights have been removed from the appeal site, planning permission is still necessary.

The appellant has identified a lack of engagement and communication by the Council. Although unfortunate, in this instance, this does not impact on the planning merits of the appeal.

For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.