Side dormer and loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 June 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/D/18/3198861 2 Simpson Close, Maidenhead, SL6 8RZ  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 Razwan Khan against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead  The application Ref 17/03320, dated 26 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 January 2018.  The development proposed is a side dormer and loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matter 2. The description of development varies on the Appellant’s and Council’s paperwork; I use the Appellant’s description from the appeal form which I consider fairly represents the proposed works. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is a one bedroomed two storey ‘cluster’ home on the north-west corner of a block of four. It has its entrance door on the elevation broadly at right angles to the road and the other elevation faces the road. The block of four homes is of simple pleasing design with a pitched roof running parallel to the road and lying close to another block of four of the same design and clad finish. The locality has varied house types and fairly generous areas of open landscape which all come together to make an area of established residential character with an agreeable appearance. The proposal is as described above and would create an additional bedroom. Because of the layout of this home and the block this ‘side’ dormer would be on the elevation which faces the road. 5. Regrettably the planned dormer would occupy too large a percentage of the sloping roof side of the appeal property facing the road and detract from its simple and characteristic form. The block would become unbalanced on the road side. This corner would appear ‘top heavy’ and the straightforward Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/18/3198861 2 visually pleasing uniformity along this stretch would be lost. The scheme would lack a sense of subtlety because of the excess scale of the dormer and this bulk of high level structure in this context and would be obtrusive in the scene and lack sympathy with the immediate and wider surrounds. The sight would be an alien one which would be jarring on the eye. 6. Even with the matching cladding the Appellant is willing to use, the planned structure would look too dominant and unbalanced on the building and in the wider scene. I do accept that passers-by are limited in number on this cul-de- sac which the Appellant underlines is a private road but, nevertheless, it would be fairly widely visible from a number of vantage points and poor design should not be sanctioned just because views from the public realm might be limited. 7. I should add that I did note that on some of the newer parts of this wider neighbourhood there were a few dormers in evidence. However, numbers were modest, dormers were smaller and more subtle than the proposal, and the overall streetscene in those immediate localities was harmonious not least because these dormers have been part of the original design for the dwellings in any one row and were not piecemeal. 8. Saved Policies DG1 and H14 of the Council’s Local Plan, taken together, call for, amongst other matters, high quality design and extensions which should safeguard surrounding environment and character and be sympathetic in scale and form to a host property and local roofscape. Given the foregoing I conclude that the proposal would conflict with these policies. Other matters 9. I do have great sympathy with the Appellant’s wish for additional accommodation and the explanation which lies behind this desire is extremely well put. I can sense the frustration of trying to work and liaise with the Council and I can see that there have not been objections from local residents to the proposal. I do, however, have to consider the matter from the perspective of the enduring streetscene. The Appellant expresses some willingness for flexibility in design of the dormer but I have to assess the scheme which was refused by the Council. 10. The Appellant understandably points to a dormer which has recently been sanctioned on the same building. This is a flat roofed dormer which would lie on the roof slope furthest from the road on the same block of homes. It has been accepted by the Council (under ref 18/00128/CPD) as ‘permitted development’ not requiring specific planning permission from the local planning authority. Unlike the appeal proposal the Council was not able to consider the visual merits or otherwise of the scheme. I am not convinced that this ‘permitted development’ should set a precedent for dormers on this block and in any event the positions, and degree of prominence from the road, would be very different. I take the Appellant’s point that the there could be angles of view where two dormers would give some sense of balance but from my perspective the negative visual impact of the appeal scheme from the principal part of the street would prevail over this argument. 11. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above. Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/18/3198861 3 12. I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered; the Council’s policies which I cite mirror relevant objectives within the Framework. Overall conclusion 13. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR