Conversion of loft space to form habitable room, and the erection of dormer windows to each of the side elevations & 1 No roof light to the front elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 March 2018 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/D/17/3190028 14 Daryngton Drive, Guildford, GU1 2QB  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 Duke against the decision of Guildford Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/P/01715, dated 8 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 4 October 2017.  The development proposed is the conversion of loft space to form habitable room, and the erection of dormer windows to each of the side elevations & 1 No roof light to the front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of 14 Daryngton Drive and the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached, two-storey dwelling set within a residential area comprising detached and semi-detached properties of mostly similar age but with a mix of appearances and roof designs. No 14 has a fairly narrow width and is built with a hipped roof and off-centre gable feature over a first- floor window to the front elevation. It is proposed to extend the habitable living space into the loft area including with two dormer windows, one to each side roof slope. 4. The Council adopted its Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG): Residential Extensions in September 2003. This advises that roof extensions should not substantially increase the roof volume and that dormer windows should respect the appearance of the property and not adversely affect the street scene. It further states that the size and design of dormer windows should be sympathetic to the existing dwelling and it adds that the purpose of a dormer window is to provide light and not to gain increases in floor area. Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/17/3190028 2 5. Each dormer would span almost the entire length of the side roof slopes, with a flat top and pitched sides to follow the property’s hipped roof slopes to the front and rear. Each would add considerable volume to the existing roof space and in turn would provide additional usable floorspace, rather than just additional light, in order to accommodate two new double bedrooms, a bathroom, and space for stair access. This would all be contrary to the SPG. In addition, both dormers would be set only marginally below the roof’s ridge and up from the side eaves. Although of matching materials, each would appear bulky and out of scale with the size and shape of the roof in a manner that would be unsympathetic to the simple and traditional appearance of the original dwelling. Because of their prominence and obvious visual presence when seen from Daryngton Drive, they would also be detrimental to the street scene. 6. The appellant has argued that the dormers would not impact upon the adjoining properties. In terms of the neighbours’ living conditions I do not disagree, and I note that this is also reflected within the Council’s decision and the officer’s report. 7. I recognise that there are other examples of dormer additions and roof extensions to other properties in the area, including along Daryngton Drive and to the rear of the appeal site. However, by far the majority of properties are unaltered to any significant degree at roof level and those changes that do exist are not generally reflective of the wider character and appearance of this residential area, which retains much of its original form. 8. I have carefully considered the specific examples that have been put to me by the appellant at Nos 3, 5, 10, 12 and 16 Daryngton Drive. Nothing that I saw was directly comparable to the appeal proposal in terms of its form. The works at Nos 5, 10 and 12 were all different but the alterations at roof level all appeared to be part of more extensive additions to each of those properties. The examples at Nos 3 and 16 (the latter which faces towards the appeal site) are both side dormer extensions but in each case these demonstrated to me the harm that unsympathetic additions can cause to the appearance of the street scene. Furthermore, I do not know the background or planning history to any of these and in this instance I have considered the proposal on its own merits and in light of current guidance and development plan policies. 9. The appellant has stated that a similar proposal has been approved under permitted development. However, I have been provided with no details of any alternative works to the property that may be implemented. I therefore have nothing to draw any comparison with. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of 14 Daryngton Drive and the wider street scene. It would therefore conflict with the design codes given by Policy G5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan (LP) 2003 insofar as they require development proposals to, amongst other things, harmonise with its surroundings and to reinforce the identity and character of an area. It would also conflict with LP Policy H8, which deals specifically with extensions to dwellings in urban areas and requires there to be no adverse effect on the scale and character of the Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/17/3190028 3 dwelling, and no unacceptable effect on the existing context and character of the surroundings. In this regard the proposal would also conflict with a core planning principle of the National Planning Policy Framework, which is to always seek to secure high quality design. 11. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. John D Allan INSPECTOR