Regularisation of rear dormer windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 November 2017 by Patrick Whelan BA(Hons) Dip Arch MA MSc ARB RIBA RTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20th November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/D3830/D/17/3185862 69 Haywards Road, Haywards Heath RH16 4HX  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 N & Mrs RK Pepper against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council.  The application Ref DM/17/2148, dated 18 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 July 2017.  The development is described as the regularisation of rear dormer windows. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The planning application the subject of this appeal, relates to a roof development already erected. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 4. No 69 is an attractive, semi-detached house in a distinctive street containing a variety of houses distinguished in part by the legibility of their forms and their interesting and ordered roofscapes of gables, hips and features such as chimneys, ornamental ridges and small dormers. The site stands in an area designated by the Council as the Haywards Road, Gower Road Area of Townscape Character. 5. The main roof form of No 69 is similar to many in the street, with a shared, gabled 2-storey outrigger extending behind a gabled roof running parallel to the street across the pair of properties. The main rear slopes of some of the surrounding roofs have been extended with dormers including flat roofs. The building on the free side of No 69 has erected a mansard over its rear outrigger. Thus, rear dormers are part of the roofscape character of the area. 6. The returning form of this roof development, where the dormer on the main slope joins with the dormer on the outrigger slope, is unusual. It undermines the order in the roofscape of the pair of buildings by obscuring the valley between the main and outrigger roofs. The outrigger dormer makes the building below appear top-heavy by enveloping the free space above the roof Appeal Decision APP/D3830/D/17/3185862 2 slope. The incongruity of the dormer’s returning, box-like form undermines the attractively delineated skyline across the pair of buildings and diminishes the spaciousness above the main eaves line which is a characteristic of the townscape in this area. 7. In its favour, the dormer over the main roof is set back from the flank gable and it is set above the eaves of the main roof which retains something of the hierarchy of townscape. Notwithstanding this, the dimensions of the outrigger dormer overpower the building below. Its flat roof rising above the ridge of the outrigger roof shown on drawing S11521/4 revLDC is insensitive to the distinctive townscape order and detailing of this building and the surrounding area. 8. The alternative, partly elevated on drawing S11521/4 revW, indicates the outrigger dormer with a lower roof as well as a chimney. Such an amendment would reduce the impact on the outrigger below in terms of scale and detailing. However, the harm from the return element to the roofscape of the building as a whole, would remain. 9. The main roof of the building appears to be covered in slates. While the application form describes the walls of the development as being in artificial slate, they appeared to me to be in a concrete tile which compounds the insensitivity of the form of the development in the context of the surrounding buildings. 10. The appellant draws my attention to roof development in the neighbourhood. I have taken this into account in my assessment of the character of the area. However, No 67 has a different main roof orientation and its outrigger dormer does not return across the roof to the flank as this development. The dormer at No 70 sits on the flank slope rather than the rear and appears lower than the ridge of the roof on which it sits. 11. The dormer erected at No 37 appears similar to this development. However, the circumstances which led to its erection are not before me, so I cannot be sure it was not erected under permitted development. In any event, it is an isolated example. The other examples of rear roof development in the area, limited in number as they are, like Nos 73 and 75, appear to follow the more conventional form of a simple box on the main roof slope, without a return. I note the front dormers at No 81 and the cladding on No 93. These references have limited similarity to this development and they do not alter the bearing of this development in relation to the townscape character of the area. 12. I acknowledge that the proportions of the windows in the dormer reflect those in the house, but this is a neutral factor in the assessment of its impact. The dormer is hardly visible from Haywards Road. However, despite some limited screening in the back garden, it is conspicuous in views from Selby Court and from neighbouring dwellings. 13. The appellant suggests there is a fallback position which would not be significantly different to the development; however, I do not have the details of that fallback position. I am therefore unable to conclude that there is a greater than theoretical possibility that it might take place or compare it to this development. Appeal Decision APP/D3830/D/17/3185862 3 14. I appreciate that the appeal follows works which were undertaken in the belief they were permitted development. However, section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that I determine this appeal in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 15. Accordingly, and for the reasons above, I conclude that the development has an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It conflicts with policies B1 and H9 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan 2004. These policies require the design and scale of extensions to be in keeping with the existing and surrounding dwellings, to respect its townscape setting and local building style, and to avoid an adverse impact on the character of the locality. It would also conflict with policies E9 and E10 of the Haywards Heath Town Council Neighbourhood Plan 2016 which require development in an Area of Townscape Character to pay particular attention to retaining its special character. 16. Roofscape is an important element of building which can influence the attractiveness of a place and in this regard the proposal would conflict too with the objectives for good design as set out in bullet 4 of paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework and in the Planning Practice Guidance1, which advises that development should seek to promote character in townscape by responding to and reinforcing locally distinctive patterns of development. Conclusion 17. Whilst the development provides additional accommodation, this is outweighed by the unacceptable harm it would cause to the character and appearance of the area, which is in clear conflict with the policies of the development plan. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Patrick Whelan INSPECTOR 1 Planning Practice Guidance, ID 26-007-20140306