Erection of rear dormer windows

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 27 February 2018 by Gareth Wildgoose BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 March 2018 Appeal A Ref: APP/Z4718/D/17/3191051 191 Radcliffe Road, Golcar, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire HD7 4EZ  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 J Mashiter against the decision of Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/62/91834/W, dated 14 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 September 2017.  The development proposed is “erection of rear dormer windows”. Appeal B Ref: APP/Z4718/D/17/3191053 193 Radcliffe Road, Golcar, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire HD7 4EZ  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 Ian Midgley against the decision of Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/62/91833/W, dated 14 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 September 2017.  The development proposed is “erection of rear dormer windows”. Decisions: Appeal A 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B 2. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 3. No 191 and No 193 Radcliffe Road (No 191 and No 193) are individual properties within an adjoining semi-detached pair. The planning applications subject to each appeal were submitted separately. However, the proposals relate to similar rear dormers at each property and the Council’s reasons for refusal are identical in terms of the proposal subject to each appeal. The appellants have requested that the appeals are considered together and, therefore, given the common and overlapping issues I have necessarily conjoined the appeal decisions. 4. The description of development provided by the application form for each appeal has been amended by the parties in subsequent documents following the submission of revised plans, which removed front dormers, before the Appeal Decisions APP/Z4718/D/17/3191051 & APP/Z4718/D/17/3191053 2 Council made each decision. The description of development provided in the appeal forms for each appeal reflect the proposals within the plans upon which the Council made its decisions and therefore, I adopt them accordingly for both Appeals A and B. 5. The Council’s decision notices make reference to conflict with Policies PLP24 and PLP57 of the Emerging Kirklees Local Plan publication version that was submitted for examination in April 2017. However, the Emerging Local Plan has yet to be adopted and there is no evidence before me as to whether the policies are subject to any unresolved objections, which limits the weight I can give to the policies of the Emerging Kirklees Local Plan when determining Appeals A and B. I have, therefore, determined Appeals A and B principally on the basis of the saved policies of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan (UDP), adopted March 1999, taking account of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Main Issues 6. The main issues for both Appeals A and B are:  Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and the development plan, including the effect on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it, and;  The effect on the character and appearance of the existing property and the area. Reasons Whether the proposals would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt Appeal A and Appeal B 7. Nos. 191 and No 193, subject to Appeal A and Appeal B respectively, are a modern semi-detached pair of properties that lie within the Green Belt on the southern side of Radcliffe Road. Based upon the evidence before me, the rear boundaries of the sites denote the Green Belt boundary with a railway line located beyond. The appeal proposals relate to similar rear dormers that only differ in terms of their proposed siting within the respective roofs and would be symmetrical features should both proposals be built. 8. Saved Policy D11 of the UDP relates to proposals for the extension of buildings within the Green Belt. The policy sets out relevant considerations in terms of the impact on the openness and character of the Green Belt and the size of extensions in relation to the existing building which should remain the dominant element. The Framework post-dates the adoption of the UDP. Paragraph 89 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in Green Belt, unless it falls within certain listed exceptions. The listed exceptions include the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 9. The Framework does not provide a specific definition of what would constitute a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building and, therefore, it is a matter of judgement for the decision maker. The evidence before me indicates that Nos. 191 and 193 were both constructed as part of a Appeal Decisions APP/Z4718/D/17/3191051 & APP/Z4718/D/17/3191053 3 planning permission granted in 2011. Following the removal of permitted development rights for buildings, structures and extensions as part of that permission, no subsequent extensions to either property have taken place or been granted planning permission. 10. Having regard to the above, the proposed rear dormers to No 191 and No 193 respectively would not increase the footprint of the original buildings and would result in only a modest increase in volume when compared to the existing properties. I am, therefore, satisfied that the proposed rear dormers subject to Appeal A and Appeal B would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original buildings and therefore, would fall within the listed exception at bullet point 3 of paragraph 89 of the Framework. Consequently, the proposals subject Appeal A and Appeal B are not inappropriate development in Green Belt. 11. The Council has expressed specific concerns with respect to the effect on the open character of the Green Belt. However, the effect upon the openness of the Green Belt of an extension or alteration of a building that does not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building is implicitly taken into account in the exception at bullet point 3 of paragraph 89 of the Framework. Consequently, given my findings that the developments subject to Appeal A and Appeal B would accord with the exception at bullet point 3 of paragraph 89, it is not necessary that I separately assess their impact upon openness in that respect. In any case, given the absence of an increase in the footprint of the dwellings or significant change to the overall proportions of the original buildings, the proposed dormers would not have an adverse impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. The siting and proportions of the rear dormers also would not harm the other purposes of Green Belt listed at paragraph 80 of the Framework. 12. I conclude that the proposals subject to Appeals A and B are not inappropriate development in the Green Belt when having regard to paragraph 89 of the Framework, as the proposed rear dormers to No 191 and No 193 respectively would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original buildings. In that respect, there is also no conflict with Saved Policy D11 of the UDP in so far as it relates to the openness of the Green Belt and the other purposes of including land within it. 13. As I have found that the proposals are not inappropriate development in Green Belt and no other harm has been identified in Green Belt terms, it is not necessary to consider whether there are other considerations in favour of Appeal A or Appeal B which would amount to very special circumstances. As the Council’s primary concerns relate to the scale, design and siting of the dormers, I necessarily go on to consider the effect of the proposals subject to Appeal A and Appeal B on the character and appearance of the existing properties and the area separately within the subsequent main issue. Character and appearance Appeal A and Appeal B 14. Nos. 191 and 193 when viewed at the front from Radcliffe Road have the appearance of a semi-detached pair of bungalows with stone walls and clay tile roofs that include roof lights. In contrast, as a consequence of steeply sloping topography toward the south, the rear elevations of the dwellings have a two Appeal Decisions APP/Z4718/D/17/3191051 & APP/Z4718/D/17/3191053 4 storey appearance with roof lights visible in the roofs. The rear elevations and roofslopes of the properties are visually prominent above the rear boundary fence particularly from elevated positions further to the south, including a number of public vantage points along Manchester Road, due to the largely open surroundings to that aspect and the surrounding topography of the Colne Valley where Nos. 191 and 193 are located. 15. To the eastern side of No 191 is a terraced row of four properties with front building lines closer to the road, some variation in terms of individually painted brick walls and roof heights at eaves and ridge level that are lower than the semi-detached pair of properties subject to Appeals A and B. Holmeroyd (No 197), a detached property to the west of the semi-detached pair also has a lower roof height at eaves and ridge level. A longer terraced row further to the east has a more traditional two storey appearance adjoining Radcliffe Road with a taller roof at eaves and ridge level than Nos. 191 and 193. However, notwithstanding the evident variation in roof heights and building lines along the southern side of Radcliffe Road, there is a visual coherence and rhythm to the rural character and appearance of the side gable roof designs of the detached, semi-detached and terraced properties with the traditional roof forms only interrupted by the intermittent presence of rooflights and chimneys. 16. The proposed rear dormer at No 191 subject to Appeal A would be sited in a position set away from the boundary with No 193. It would have a rear gable design consisting of a clay tile roof, hardwood frame and 4no. glazed panels intended to assimilate with the design and position of windows at lower ground floor and ground floor level within the existing rear elevation. The dormer would have a reduced height when compared with the ridge of the roof. However, the overall proportions of the rear dormer arising from the inclusion of floor to ceiling windows would result in a window cill level below the existing eaves level of the roof. The resultant relationship with the simple form of the existing roof of No 191 would appear awkward and would result in an incongruous, dominant and harmful addition to the rear elevation and roof of the existing property. 17. The proposed rear dormer at No 193 subject to Appeal B would be sited in a position set away from the boundary with No 191 with identical design, materials and proportions to the proposal identified as Appeal A. As per the proposal subject to Appeal A, the overall proportions of the rear dormer arising from the inclusion of floor to ceiling windows would result in a window cill level below the existing eaves level of the roof. The resultant relationship with the simple form of the existing roof of No 193 would appear awkward and would result in an incongruous, dominant and harmful addition to the rear elevation and roof of the existing property. 18. Having regard to the above, the proposed rear dormers at No 191 and No 193 would be viewed prominently at distance from elevated positions to the south as part of the Colne Valley landscape. From those public vantage points, the rear dormers would appear out of place when viewed in the context of the surrounding roofs of properties that are characterised by uncomplicated and traditional roof forms that provide some visual coherence within the landscape, despite the variation in building heights. Consequently, the proposed rear dormers subject to Appeal A and Appeal B would significantly harm the character and appearance of the existing properties and the area. Appeal Decisions APP/Z4718/D/17/3191051 & APP/Z4718/D/17/3191053 5 19. In reaching the above findings, I have taken into account that there are examples of front and rear dormers of differing designs, together with variations in style, scale, building heights and roof forms of properties within the wider setting of the Colne Valley landscape. However, I am not aware of the planning status or circumstances that led to the presence of the existing dormers and other roof alterations. In any case, the existence of other rear dormers does not outweigh the significant harm that would arise from the proposals given that the examples I observed are distant from the appeal properties. The diversity of building styles evident in the wider landscape does not influence the visual coherence of the immediate context of the appeal sites. 20. The appellants have provided a solicitors letter which intends that the rear dormer windows would be undertaken together if planning permission were to be granted for both Appeals A and B. However, the solicitors’ letter does not constitute a complete planning obligation that would bind the appellants or their successors in title to such a development and therefore, it can be afforded little weight. In any case, whilst the development of Appeals A and B together would retain some balance and symmetry to the rear elevations and roofs of the semi-detached pair of properties, it would not overcome the overall harm arising from the introduction of rear dormers at Nos. 191 and 193 upon the character and appearance of the existing properties and the area. 21. I conclude that the proposed rear dormers to No 191 (Appeal A) and to No 193 (Appeal B) would significantly harm the character and appearance of the existing properties and the area. The proposals, therefore, conflict with Saved Policies BE1, BE2 and BE13 of the UDP. When taken together, the policies seek good quality design that retains a sense of local identity and is in keeping with any surrounding development including in terms of materials, scale, massing, window openings, roof styles and architectural detailing. The policies are consistent with the design objectives of the Framework and its emphasis upon local distinctiveness. Other Matters 22. The separation distances from the rear dormers at Nos. 191 and 193 subject to Appeals A and B to neighbouring properties would be sufficient to ensure no adverse effect upon the living conditions of their occupiers. The rear dormers would also have no impact upon existing parking provision or highway safety. Nevertheless, the absence of concern in those respects is a neutral factor. Conclusion 23. I have found that the proposals comprising Appeal A and Appeal B would not be inappropriate development in Green Belt and no other harm has been identified in Green Belt terms with respect to either proposal. However, the harm arising from each proposal upon the character and appearance of the existing properties (No 191 and No 193 respectively) and the area is a significant and overriding factor which reflects conflict with the development plan and the Framework when taken as a whole. 24. Therefore, for the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that both Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed. Gareth Wildgoose INSPECTOR