Construction of a front porch and dormer window to the front; rear dormer to be built as permitted development

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 May 2018 by S R G Baird BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W4705/D/18/3195597 88 Bolingbroke Street, Bradford, BD5 9NR  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 M Ibrar against the decision of City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council.  The application Ref 17/06195/HOU, dated 3 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 February 2018.  The development proposed is the construction of a front porch and dormer window to the front; rear dormer to be built as permitted development. Preliminary Matters 1. Notwithstanding the description of the application above, the Grounds of Appeal acknowledge that the rear dormer does not benefit from permitted development rights. The porch and the front and rear dormers have been erected. Accordingly, I shall deal with this appeal under S73A of the above Act on the basis of the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a front porch and the insertion of dormer windows into the front and rear roof planes. 2. The Grounds of Appeal refer to 2 Policies (UR3 and D1) from the Bradford Replacement Unitary Development Plan. As I understand it, both policies have been superseded by Policies DS 1 and DS3 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document adopted 18 July 2017 and it is against these policies that I have assessed the merits of the development as constructed. Decision 3. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the insertion of dormer windows within the front and rear roof planes. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the front porch and planning permission is granted for the erection of a front porch at 88 Bolingbroke Street, Bradford, BD5 9NR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/06195/HOU, dated 3 November 2017, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted. Main Issue 4. The effect on the appearance of the area. Reasons 5. Core Strategy Policies DS1 and DS3 seek a high standard of design. In particular development should be appropriate to its context, in terms of scale, detailing and materials. The Council has no objection to the design and appearance of the front porch and I have no reason to disagree with that Appeal Decision APP/W4705/D/18/3195597 2 conclusion. Regarding dormer windows, a Householder Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides specific guidance on design and position. The guidance indicates that full-width pitched roof dormers are generally considered unacceptable. 6. Within this terrace of properties, there are several dormer windows at the front and rear. Thus, the principle of such features is not at issue. At No. 88, the pitched roof dormers occupy almost the full-width of the roof plane, they have a ridge line similar to the original dwelling and the front elevations are finished in brown plastic cladding. Whilst the colour of the cladding matches the finish of the windows, the design, scale and detail of the dormers, particularly the area above the window and below the ridge, result in them appearing noticeably top-heavy and obtrusive. This adverse effect is exacerbated by the darker colour of the cladding. As such, these dormers are prominent and obtrusive in the street scene where they unacceptably affect the appearance of the area contrary to the objectives of development plan policy. Conclusion 7. For the above reasons and having taken all other matters into consideration this appeal as it relates to the front and rear dormer windows is dismissed and the appeal is allowed only insofar as it relates to the front porch. George Baird Inspector