Appeal 6007270

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are: i) the effect of the proposed rear dormer on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area; and ii) the effect of the dormer on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at Nos. 52 and [address].

The appeal site is a two-storey mid-terraced house on the western side of [address]. The property has a single storey rear projection, 1.9m deep and 1.8m wide on its northern side. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature, of mainly terraced properties of a similar scale and size. [address] slopes down to the north towards [address], and this has some effect on the regularity of the roof ridges, which is more pronounced on the east side of [address], opposite the appeal dwelling. The run of houses neighbouring either side of the appeal property have general uniformity of eaves and ridge line.

The proposed rear dormer would effectively span the whole width of the roof; indeed, the annotation on the drawing states that the width of the dormer is limited by the party wall divisions with the neighbours each side. Its front would be set some 200mm from the rear elevation of the house and its flat roof would run through to the ridge. To achieve the interior accommodation, the ridge would be raised 400mm above the ridge levels of the 2 neighbouring houses.

The result would be a dormer that would overwhelm the rear elevation of the house, appearing a top-heavy box-like incongruous structure. Whilst it would be set at the rear of the terrace, I would be evident from nearby gardens and from the rear windows of houses in [address]. Taken with the raised ridge, which would be a marked anomaly when seen from the front and back, the effect of the proposed rear dormer would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area.

I have already described the harmful effect that the proposed dormer would have when seen from the gardens of neighbours, but I do not see that there is any additional significant increase in harm as described in the second refusal reason.

I have taken account of what is said on behalf of the appellant about other examples of varying ridge heights in the surrounding area, but these either arise from anomalies in specific cases or result from approvals in circumstances that I am not aware of beyond being given a number of planning references and addresses. I also appreciate that there are permitted development rights for rear dormers, but these do not apply here, and the examples of existing dormers that may be of similar scale are not persuasive. I do not regard there as being a permitted development ‘fall-back position’ in this case; certainly, none has been demonstrated. I can appreciate that the dormer would enable additional accommodation to be provided in the house, no doubt to the advantage of the occupiers.

My conclusion is that the proposed rear dormer and its consequent raising of the ridge line would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed.