Loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 July 2018 by Benjamin Webb BA(Hons) MA MA MSc PGDip(UD) MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/V3310/D/18/3198400 3 Susini Drive, Highbridge, Somerset TA9 3FN.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Miss Sara Dykes against the decision of Sedgemoor District Council.  The application Ref 12/17/00027 DRT, dated 11 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 13 March 2018.  The development proposed is a loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Notwithstanding the description of development above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear that the development includes 2 ‘dormers’. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. 3 Susini Drive and its neighbour 7 Maritime Walk form a pair of 2 storey semi- detached dwellings located on relatively recent housing development. The dwellings are angled across their front and rear elevations producing an expanded ‘C’ shape footprint with the principal part of the front elevation located at the centre. The building forms part of a linked block with a parking court at its centre. The estate as a whole incorporates a mix of 2 and 3 storey buildings in a limited range of designs which appear to remain largely unaltered. 5. The proposed front dormer appears to be based on the ornamental gables featured in some other house designs on the estate, and would incorporate a juliet balcony. The dormer would as such be a bulky form. Whilst both ornamental gables and juliet balconies are common features of other house designs, I did not observe their direct combination at roof top level on any other buildings on the estate. This is also not shown on the photos submitted by the appellant, which reflect my own observation that juliet balconies occur either at first or second floor level, but not in the roof. Against a context featuring standardised designs the introduction of this feature would therefore appear both incongruous and alien. Viewed across the front elevations of No 3 and No 7, and in particular the shared central section of the elevation, the dormer would also greatly upset the balance and consistency of Appeal Decision APP/V3310/D/18/3198400 2 the existing building design, appearing visually intrusive. As such I consider that the dormer would cause significant harm both to the visual character of the building in question, and to that of the estate of which it forms part. 6. A large flat roofed dormer would also be added to, and occupy most of the rear roof slope of the dwelling, and would be of significant bulk. Viewed from the parking court the rear roof slopes of the buildings within the block do not currently feature dormer windows. Dormers are more generally infrequent features of building designs on the estate. Those I observed were much smaller than that proposed, were of regular shape and featured hipped roofs. Viewed against its context, the dormer would again therefore appear both incongruous and alien, and despite only being visible from the parking court, I conclude that it would nonetheless harm the visual character of the building in question and that of the estate of which it forms part. 7. I recognise that the Council’s planning committee minutes indicate that it had no objection to the rear dormer, but the refusal notice refers to dormers in the plural. Given the uncertainty in respect of the reason for refusal versus the planning committee minutes, as part of the determination of the appeal further comments were sought from the main parties about the effect of the rear dormer upon the character and appearance of the area. I note the comments made by the main parties including the email exchanges between the planning case officer and the appellant on 26 January 2018. However, I am not bound by such email exchanges, and none of the comments made alter my conclusion relating the adverse impact of the rear dormer upon the character and appearance of the area. 8. It is not entirely clear whether planning permission would be needed for the rear dormer, but this is not a matter for me to determine in the context of an appeal made under Section 78 of the above Act. It is open to the appellant to seek a determination under Section 192 of the Act in relation to this matter. My decision on this appeal under Section 78 of the Act does not affect the issuing of a determination under Section 192 of the Act. I have determined this appeal on its planning merits. 9. For the collective reasons outlined above, I conclude that the development would not be in accordance with Policy D2 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Published Version 2013 (CS), which amongst other things seeks to secure design that responds positively to and reflects the particular local characteristics of the site. Though the Council also states that the development would not be in accordance with Policy D16 of the CS, the relevant part of the policy appears to be specifically concerned with the avoidance of adverse impacts on the residential amenity, or living conditions of occupants and neighbours, which the Council has not otherwise identified as being a cause of concern. Consequently, Policy D16 of the CS is not directly relevant to the main issue. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, and taking into account comments made from other interested parties including the Parish Council, the appeal should be dismissed. Benjamin Webb INSPECTOR