Loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 March 2018 by Martin H Seddon BSc MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/D/17/3190565 14 St. James Gate, Sunningdale, Ascot, SL5 9SS  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 Murphy against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.  The application Ref: 17/02332, dated 3 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 11 September 2017.  The development proposed is a loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The loft conversion includes a flat roofed rear dormer, which had been substantially completed prior to the application to the Council. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area. Reasons 4. No.14 St James Gate is a modern three storey property located within a short terrace. St James Gate is a cul-de-sac which serves this small gated development. 5. The rear dormer extends for almost the full width of the rear elevation of No.14 and with a height just below the existing ridge line of the roof. The dormer cannot be seen from the cul-de-sac. 6. I accept that the more distant public views of the rear dormer are limited by surrounding trees alongside London Road and Lady Margaret Road, some of which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. Views of the dormer from the property of Clareways will also be limited to a degree by intervening trees, although the lower part of their trunks are generally clear of vegetation. 7. However, the dormer is readily visible from the footpaths that give access to the rear of the appeal property and the terraced building comprising Nos. 7-11 St James Gate. It will also be visible from nearby rear gardens, including the large garden at the rear of Clareways. Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/17/3190565 2 8. The dormer is prominent on the rear roof slope of No.14 because of its height and size. It appears obtrusive and out of character because of its scale, mass and bulk on the otherwise unaltered rear roof slope of the terrace. This is compounded by the absence of dormers on the rear roof slope of the terrace of Nos.7-11 St James Gate. I accept that the design of the dormer is contemporary and uncluttered. Despite this, I find that its position and form does not relate well to the terrace as a whole. Although the appellant advises that the dormer reflects the design of the single storey rear extension, that part of the development is well screened by boundary fencing at the rear of the gardens. The dormer is more readily seen on from the rear footpaths as an addition to the roof at high level. 9. The development conflicts with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan policy DG1. This sets out guidelines for development, including that special attention should be given to the roofscape of buildings. It conflicts with Local Plan policy H14 which indicates, amongst other things, that extensions should not have any adverse effect upon the character or appearance of the original property or any neighbouring properties. I find that the dormer does not positively improve the character and appearance of the property and fails to meet the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). In view of the harm to the character and appearance of the building the development does not constitute sustainable development and does not meet the presumption in favour of such development in the Framework. Conclusion 10. I have taken all other matters raised into account, including the appellant’s explanation regarding the circumstances leading up to construction of the dormer without planning permission. However, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Martin H Seddon INSPECTOR