New dormer window to the front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 October 2017 by G J Fort BA PGDip LLM MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 01 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/V0728/D/17/3178628 8 North Terrace, Skelton, Redcar & Cleveland  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 D Burluraux against the decision of Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council.  The application Ref R/2017/0012/CA, dated 6 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 April 2017.  The development proposed is a new dormer window to the front. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new dormer window to the front at 8 North Terrace, Skelton, Redcar & Cleveland in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref R/2017/0012/CA, dated 6 January 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan scale 1 to 1250; Site Plan Scale 1 to 500; Proposed floor plans scale 1 to 50; Proposed elevations and section scales 1:50 and 1:100. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is whether or not the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Skelton Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal building is a mid-terrace stone-faced single-storey cottage, with a pitched roof to the front covered in concrete tiles. Adjacent properties in the terrace, and in the one across the road, vary in terms of scale, age and style, including an eclectic range of building materials. These aspects of the terraces, taken together with their strong building lines which add definition to the historic routes and the green space that they frame, contribute considerably to the character, appearance and significance of Skelton Conservation Area. Appeal Decision APP/V0728/D/17/3178628 2 4. The appeal scheme would introduce a dormer to the front with a pitched roof, set back from the appeal building’s eaves, and with its apex more or less at the same level as that of the main roof. A window would be inserted in its front elevation. 5. The varied scale, roof materials and underlying topography of the streetscape add a great deal of articulation to the rooflines within North and South Terrace. I saw within the immediate environs of the appeal building several examples of front dormers, of differing scales, detailing, and placement on their host roofs. Moreover, I saw other alterations on front roof-slopes including solar panels and windows. The proposed development would therefore not look out of character within the eclectic roof-scape of its immediate surroundings. 6. I note that dormers elsewhere within the environs of the appeal development are on properties of a larger scale. However, the proposed development’s sensitive placement, in what is a relatively large roof plane, mean that it would not appear as a dominant or intrusive element. What is more, due to the existing asymmetric arrangement of openings on the appeal building’s front elevation, the offset placement of the dormer would not undermine any strong architectural balance. Moreover, I saw dormers elsewhere that have relationships with their host roof slopes similar to that proposed by the appeal scheme. 7. Consequently, taking these matters together, I consider that the proposed development would cause no material harm to the character and appearance of its host dwelling or its surroundings, and would not harm the significance of the Conservation Area. Therefore, mindful of the duty arising from section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I conclude that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of Skelton Conservation Area. For these reasons also, I conclude that the proposed development would not conflict with Policy CS25 of the Redcar & Cleveland Core Strategy (adopted July 2007) or Policy DP9 of the Redcar & Cleveland Development Policies (adopted July 2007), or the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as, amongst other matters, they seek to ensure that new development preserves or enhances the built and historic environment. Conditions 8. I am mindful of paragraph 206 of the Framework when attaching conditions, which establishes that they should be necessary, relevant to planning and the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. 9. I have attached the standard implementation condition to meet the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). In the interests of certainty, I have attached a condition which specifies the approved plans. To ensure that the proposed development is sensitive to the character and appearance of its host dwelling and the wider Conservation Area, I have attached a condition requiring the use of matching materials in its external construction. Appeal Decision APP/V0728/D/17/3178628 3 Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. G J Fort INSPECTOR