Extend rear dormer window, extend front of building under porch, re-clad elevations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 February 2017 by Andy Harwood CMS MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 01 March 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/N1215/D/16/3164141 17 Fishers Close, Blandford Forum, Dorset DT11 7EL  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Langdown against the decision of North Dorset District Council.  The application Ref 2/2016/1135/HOUSE, dated 3 August 2016, was refused by notice dated 7 October 2016.  The development proposed is extend rear dormer window, extend front of building under porch, re-clad elevations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. It is not clear whether the amended description on the Council’s decision has been agreed. I have used the description of the proposal from the planning application forms which accurately explains what has been applied for. 3. I note that before the planning application was determined, the appellant submitted revised plans which are dated 27 September 2016. Reference is made to the revised plans within the Council officer’s report. However the publicity for the application appears to have taken place in relation to the original plans and I will consider those. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal site is located within a residential part of Blandford Forum which includes a variety of dwelling styles. In the part of Fishers Close near to the appeal site, there is a long line of very similar semi-detached chalet style dwellings. These include flat roof dormers on the front and rear elevations which are therefore a unifying characteristic of the area. On the front elevations these are particularly un-spoilt along the road. 6. At the rear, there is much greater variety with various additions having been made to this and nearby dwellings. At ground floor level, there are many extensions of various forms and sizes, many with flat roofs. The first floor Appeal Decision APP/N1215/D/16/3164141 2 dormers remain the predominant window form at that level along the rear elevations. There are however also some 2 storey flat roof extensions and I saw examples at Nos 21 and 22. Those examples straddle the pair of dwellings but are not an overriding defining characteristic of the area. 7. There is a single storey extension across the rear of the appeal site with a large flat roof. This has an overall height similar to that of the rear single-storey addition at the rear of the adjoining property, No 16 but is a little higher than that at No 18. The proposal would include a rear 2 storey extension as high as the existing rear dormer and as deep into the garden as the existing ground floor extension, close to the boundary with No 16. This would go across half of the width of the dwelling. A single storey flat roof would be retained across the other half, with the addition of a roof lantern. 8. The 2 storey part of the proposed extension would be very high on the building. Although well screened from the road and dwellings to the south, it would be very prominent from neighbouring gardens and dwellings on either side. The structure would look cumbersome and bulky in a position that breaks the building line created by the existing dormers at the rear of the nearby adjoining dwellings. The proposal would not improve the character and quality of the area and would not adequately respond to the local context. 9. At the front of the property, a partial infill of the car-port is proposed including a new position for the front door and larger hallway area. This would be a minor change to the dwelling, would not be prominent or out of keeping with the character of the existing property or those nearby. 10. The other examples of strident 2 storey extensions within Fishers Close do not justify the further erosion of character by extending in a similar way at first floor level at the appeal site. Although part of the proposal is acceptable that element is not clearly severable from the unacceptable part. Overall in relation to the main issue, the proposals would have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area. This would not comply with policy 24 of the North Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 adopted January 2016. The requirement within the National Planning Policy Framework to secure high quality design would not be achieved. Conclusion 11. The proposal would lead to more comfortable living conditions within the dwelling but this does not outweigh my conclusion on the main issue. For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andy Harwood INSPECTOR