Proposed rear and front dormer extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2017 by Darren Hendley BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 9th January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W4223/D/17/3184239 84 Stockport Road, Lydgate OL4 4JL  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 Mark Bagnall against the decision of Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref HH/340339/17, dated 7 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 4 August 2017.  The development is proposed rear and front dormer extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed rear and front dormer extensions at 84 Stockport Road, Lydgate OL4 4JL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref HH/340339/17, dated 7 June 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: Site Location Plan dated 07/06/2017 13:56:38, Existing Plans/Elevations - C8959 dated 07/06/2017 14:18:36 and Proposed Plans/Elevations - C8959 dated 07/06/2017 14:19:13. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the walls of the development hereby permitted shall match the tiles used on the existing external surfaces of the roof slopes. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, in Part E of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, a different wording has been entered. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application. 3. The Council confirmed during the course of the appeal that the site does not lie within the Lydgate Conservation Area. The site does, though, lie directly adjacent to the boundary and I have considered the appeal on this basis. Appeal Decision APP/W4223/D/17/3184239 2 Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed dormers on the setting of the Conservation Area, and whether they would preserve the setting of the grade II listed building at 93 and 95 Stockport Road. Reasons Setting of the Conservation Area 5. The appeal property comprises a 3 storey dwelling, with the third level formed in the roof space utilising white UPVC clad dormer windows that are found on both the front and rear roof slopes. The roof slopes themselves are constructed of tiles, with a considerably darker external finish. The property is set back, with its levels also substantially less than the road, so it appears that it is one storey less in height. It is found at the end of a short terrace of three properties which are of similar form and are noticeably more recent in appearance compared to most other properties in their vicinity. A low stone wall is maintained to their frontages. To the south is a further terrace of a more traditional design that is set closer to the road. 6. The property is also well set in from its side boundary to the north of the site with a side road, which forms the Conservation Area boundary. From my site visit, I observed the significance of the Conservation Area is derived principally from traditional stone buildings of varying size that are often positioned close to their site frontages, or alternatively present prominent stone boundary walls. This built form of the village is also inter-dispersed with open land, which allows elevated views through to the countryside beyond. 7. The proposed dormers would use tiles on their walls to match the existing roof, and so although they would cover more of the roof planes and extend closer to the eaves levels, their appearance would be appreciably more in keeping with the existing property than the materials of the existing dormers. They would maintain a gap between their flat roofs and the main ridgeline on the roof, and so they would remain distinctive from the overall height of the property. With the proposed materials and their proportions, they would also not unduly detract from the appearance of the terrace. 8. The first building in the Conservation Area on the same side of the road as the appeal property is set forward on its plot. This would have the effect of screening the proposed dormers, so they would not come clearly into view on Stockport Road from the north until the Conservation Area boundary is nearly reached. With regard to views back into the Conservation Area, this would be similarly limited, because the property is set back compared to the terrace to the south. As the property is set in from its side boundary, the views from the side road would also not be prominent. As such, I find the proposed dormers, with their siting on a property which is unobtrusive in its location, together with the use of tiles to match the existing roof, would not be conspicuous in views from, or into, the Conservation Area. 9. The properties which are contained within the Conservation Area are also markedly different in form to the appeal property. Where there is a degree of similarity, this concerns the stone form of the front boundary wall, although this would be unaffected. The view from the Conservation Area into the Appeal Decision APP/W4223/D/17/3184239 3 countryside over open areas of land would also be unaffected. The proposed dormers would not harm the significance of the Conservation Area. 10. I conclude the proposed dormers would have an acceptable effect on the setting of the Conservation Area. Therefore, they would comply with Policy 20 and, in this regard with, Policy 24 of the Oldham Local Development Framework Development Plan Document – Joint Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2011) (DPD) which require development to preserve the setting of a conservation area, including views in or out, and for development to reflect local character. In respect of paragraphs 132 to 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework, as I do not find that harm would occur to the significance of a designated heritage asset, there is not a requirement to weigh this against the public benefits. Setting of the Listed Building 11. Nos 93 and 95 is a substantial building dating from the early 19th century which is constructed of stone with a stone slate roof. Its special interest largely arises from its prominence and this accentuated by its separation from other buildings in the village by the proximity of the open land around it and the road in front. The appeal property lies on the opposite side of the road, although it does not face the listed building itself, but is positioned at an angle to it. 12. The proposed dormers would be distinct and clearly separated from the listed building. They would not interrupt the size and scale of the building, as they would appear as a minor alteration on a property of a significantly more modest scale. The building would remain prominent in view and this would be undiminished by the proposed dormers, due to their siting and form. 13. Consequently, I find that the proposed dormers would preserve the setting of the listed building and accord with the statutory duty under Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Similarly, they would also comply, in this regard, with Policy 24 of the DPD as they would serve to preserve or enhance the building’s special interest and its setting. Other Matters 14. The site also lies in the Green Belt. The Council considered that the proposed dormers would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building, and, therefore, would not constitute inappropriate development. I see no reasons to disagree, given that they represent a relatively modest extension and alteration. Conditions 15. In addition to the standard time limit condition (1), I have imposed conditions in the interest of certainty (2) and to safeguard the character and appearance of the building and the area through the use of matching materials to the existing roof (3). Conclusion 16. For the reasons set out above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed. Darren Hendley INSPECTOR