Loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 January 2018 by C Jack BSc(Hons) MA MA(TP) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16th January 2018. Appeal Ref: APP/Q1445/D/17/3188332 8 Brangwyn Drive, Brighton, Sussex BN1 8XF  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 Dr Amanda Harris against the decision of Brighton and Hove City Council.  The application Ref BH2017/02152, received by the Council on 26 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 September 2017.  The development proposed is a loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion at 8 Brangwyn Drive, Brighton, Sussex BN1 8XF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref BH2017/02152, received by the Council on 26 June 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) 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. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. 8 Brangwyn Drive (No 8) is a semi-detached house set in a predominantly residential area. Properties nearby are generally two-storey and include a mixture of detached and semi-detached houses. While there are some common design features and materials evident in the vicinity, houses are not of uniform appearance and I saw that many have been subject to a variety of extensions and alterations, including to the roofs. No 8 has a two storey flat roofed extension to the side, which is clearly visible from the road. It is proposed to extend the roof over the existing side extension, changing the main roof profile from hipped to a gable end. Two rooflights are proposed in the front roofslope and three flat-roofed dormers to the rear. Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/D/17/3188332 2 4. No 8 has a notably different appearance from the attached house, 10 Brangwyn Drive (No 10), including because No 10 is generally set closer to the road, has a higher ridge level, and has a brick-faced frontage rather than the Tudor-style appearance of No 8. The result is that there is currently very little symmetry or balance between the two houses, and this is exacerbated by the flat roof element at No 8. While the proposal would elongate the ridge line at No 8, the built form of the house would not extend further to the side than the existing two storey extension. Moreover, the new area of pitched roof would be more attractive and give the roof overall a more ‘complete’ and sympathetic appearance in the streetscene than existing. 5. While the extended roof would add some bulk to the dwelling, this would be modest in relation to the overall scale of the building, and so would not appear unduly heavy. I note that the main roof at No 10 would be hipped, while No 8 would have a gable end, an arrangement which is generally resisted in the Council’s adopted Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2013 (SPD12). However, given the existing differences in the appearance of the two properties, I do not consider that the proposal would harmfully unbalance the pair in this case. Furthermore, I saw that there are other examples in the local area where attached pairs do not match each other in design, form and scale, which adds to the somewhat varied appearance of properties nearby. Examples of front rooflights are also evident locally, and I agree with the Council that the rooflights proposed would not be harmful in this context. 6. There would be limited public views of the three rear dormers proposed. The dormers would be reasonably separated from each other, and set in from the sides, ridge and eaves of the roof. In addition, each dormer would not be substantially larger than the window itself. Accordingly, they would not be unduly bulky, or dominant in the roof slope, either individually or cumulatively. They would not align with the windows below, but these are not uniformly sized or positioned in the rear elevation, thus significantly limiting any potential to do so. Notwithstanding, I consider that the dormers would be generally consistent with the relevant requirements of SPD12. 7. In light of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. I therefore find no conflict with retained Policy QD14 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005, which sets out requirements for extensions and alterations including that proposals should be well designed, sited and detailed in relation to the host property, adjoining properties and to the surrounding area. Conditions 8. In addition to the three year time limit, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plan, as this provides certainty, and a condition relating to external materials to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Catherine Jack - INSPECTOR