Construct lounge and study space – new dormer, to existing dormer bungalow

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 January 2018 by H Porter BA(Hons) PGDip IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D0121/D/17/3188395 Hunters Lodge, Harris Lane, Abbots Leigh BS8 3QX  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 Mrs Stella Laycock against the decision of North Somerset Council.  The application Ref 17/P/0961/F, dated 21 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 September 2017.  The development proposed is ‘construct lounge and study space – new dormer, to existing dormer bungalow’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. I consider the main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area; and, having considered the representations made by interested parties, the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of Chelmwood, with particular regard to loss of privacy, outlook and light. Reasons Character and appearance 3. Harris Lane is characterised by an informal group of detached dwellings that overlook a semi-rural landscape within the Green Belt. The relatively large plots, loose-knit pattern of development and front boundaries defined by rubble stone walling, provide a sense of spaciousness and cohesion with the surrounding verdant context. There is variety in building ages, styles and the roof designs along Harris Lane, but each dwelling has its own form and character. Therefore, despite differences, collectively the dwellings sit in general harmony with each other and make a positive contribution to the wider area. 4. Hunters Lodge is a detached bungalow set back from Harris Lane behind a stone boundary wall and generous front garden. Overall, the appeal property has an unassuming and pleasing design that sits comfortably within its surroundings. Even with the later addition of a large open porch, the building is characterised in style, form and material treatment by its simplicity, typical of mid-to-late 20th century bungalows. The existing tiled roof is characterised Appeal Decision APP/D0121/D/17/3188395 2 by its width and shallow pitch, which in spite of a small dormer addition, denotes the building’s characteristic simple, bungalow form. 5. It is proposed to create a first-floor lounge area by the addition of a substantial ‘box’ dormer to the building’s front elevation. The front dormer would be set lower than the existing dormer, and slightly under the main ridge, though not by a substantial amount. Whilst it would not occupy the whole roof slope, it would dominate this particular part of the roof, and on account of its height and depth, would have a bulky appearance that would not be overcome by the very marginal set back from the eaves and gable-end. Thus, the proposed front dormer would alter the appearance of the existing, shallow-pitched roof form significantly. The roof level would acquire a heaviness, which, combined with the overall scale and form of the dormer, would create the appearance of a two-storey dwelling, unbalancing and undermining the building’s characteristic bungalow appearance. 6. Although a variety of design approaches are found in developments locally, where a contemporary style is used, this is applied to a building consistently. The appeal scheme, however, would impose an overtly contemporary dormer, with a large expanse of glazing bearing no relation to the building’s existing pattern of fenestration or predominant material palette. As such, I consider that the proposal would uncomfortably juxtapose this new style on the building’s authentic character. Being an incongruous addition, the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host building. 7. Currently, owing to its diminutive scale and set-back from the road, the appeal property is not particularly prominent. Due to the scale and bulk of the proposed dormer, however, the appeal site would draw the eye, becoming an incongruous feature in the immediate area. In my opinion, the impact of the proposal would be less obvious in views from further afield and the wider Green Belt, but it would nevertheless stand out in the closer context of Harris Lane, above the boundary wall, as well as from the neighbouring dwelling. As a result, there would also be limited, yet still material harm, to the character and appearance of the area. 8. Modifications to the building’s rear elevation, roof extension, additional roof lights and timber cladding are also proposed. These aspects, however, would be of a minor nature and would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building or the wider area. However, this does not outweigh my findings regarding the impact of the front dormer. 9. Overall, I conclude that the appeal proposal would cause material harm to the host dwelling and to the character and appearance of the area. Thereby conflicting with Core Policy CS12 of the North Somerset Core Strategy, January 2017 (the CS) and Policy DM32 and DM38 of the North Somerset Council Development Management Policies Sites and Policies Plan Part 1, July 2016 (the DMP). Insofar as these policies require proposals generate solutions that have clearly considered the existing context; and to ensure that, amongst other things, the form, scale and massing are appropriate and respect the characteristics of the site and surroundings; and that proposals respect the massing, scale, proportions and overall design and character of the existing property. The proposal would also contradict the ‘Residential Design Guide – section 2: Appearance and character of house extensions and alterations’ SPD, Appeal Decision APP/D0121/D/17/3188395 3 notably where it establishes that dormer extensions should be designed so that their size and design is proportionate with the roof of the existing building. Living conditions 10. There are two upper storey windows in the flank wall of Chelmwood that look out over the front garden of the appeal site, part of its shallow roof pitch, and beyond to trees and side elevations of nearby houses. I was able to see at my site visit that these windows serve a spare bedroom and another bedroom, currently used as a dressing room. 11. In my opinion the sight line into the smaller, rear window, or vice versa, would be so oblique that it would limit the opportunity for harmful overlooking. The line of site from the proposed dormer into the larger, dressing room window would be less acute. However, the appellant has agreed to a 100mm return to minimise the opportunity for overlooking, and the lower half of the extant window has obscured glazing. Therefore, while I note that the extant windows at Chelmwood may not be in compliance, I consider that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on the living conditions as a result of overlooking. 12. The proposed front dormer would occupy more of the undeveloped space forward of the front extant roof slope. While the outlook from the side windows would change, it would not have any material effect on the outlook that is currently enjoyed from the garden or primary rooms within the house. Given the set-back and gap between the two properties, I do not consider that there would be any material loss of light. I therefore find there would be no harm to neighbours’ living conditions, with particular regard to privacy, outlook and light, and find no conflict with Policy DM32 of the DMP, insofar as this seeks to ensure development does not prejudice the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. My finding on this matter, however, does not alter my conclusion in respect of character and appearance. Other matters 13. I recognise that the proposed development would be of benefit to the appellant in terms of retaining the ground-floor layout while maximising the useable living space and views out towards the Severn Estuary. However, these are personal advantages that do not justify the harm I have found and that could potentially be achieved in other, less harmful ways. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. H Porter INSPECTOR