Erection of a dormer window to rear elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 June 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C2708/D/18/3199755 29 South Street, Gargrave, Skipton BD23 3RT  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 Mick Farrar against the decision of Craven District Council.  The application Ref 2018/18927/HH was refused by notice dated 29 March 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a dormer window to rear elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a 2-storey mid-terrace house within the Gargrave Conservation (CA), which covers the central area of the settlement and is bisected by the River Aire. To my mind, the CA derives its significance as a designated heritage asset mainly from its picturesque core at Gargrave Bridge and the historic buildings that line its central streets. I saw that most buildings in the CA around the site were typically 2 or 3-storeys with dual pitched roofs that were largely uncluttered. This gives the roofscape of existing buildings in the vicinity of the site uninterrupted clean lines and a general uniformity in its appearance, which adds to the character and appearance of the CA. 4. The proposal is to erect a lead clad dormer extension on the rear roof slope of No 29. The new addition would be centrally placed on the roof between a chimneystack and gable on either side thus retaining a sense of balance and symmetry in the upper rear elevation of the host building. It would also be set in from all 4 edges of the main roof with sash windows to match those in the rear façade below. 5. The proposal would, however, be a sizable addition extending across a significant part of the rear roof slope of No 29. Due to its scale and elevated position, the new dormer would be a highly conspicuous feature of the finished building. It would be evident from the footpath and some back gardens of properties beyond the rear of the site. From these vantage points the new dormer would disturb the uncluttered rear roof slope of the host terrace save for the two small roof lights to be replaced. It would also draw the eye away from the gable end on either side of the terrace, which appears to be an Appeal Decision APP/C2708/D/18/3199755 2 important and distinctive feature of the building’s original design. For these reasons, the proposal would be an unsympathetic addition. 6. I observed that within the CA, as a whole, dormers were not a strong or prevailing feature of most properties and that the vast majority of roofs of buildings around the site were free of significant built additions. While reference is made to 4 South Street, which has a front dormer, I am unaware of the detailed circumstances of this scheme. Consequently, I am unable to draw any meaningful conclusions from it insofar as the appeal is concerned. This existing dormer does, however, serve to clearly illustrate that changes to the roof of a building can have a significant impact on the character and appearance of that building and the area to which it belongs. As the new dormer would detract from the broad uniformity in the appearance of the existing roofscape and be uncharacteristic and intrusive addition to the CA, the character and appearance of this heritage asset would fail to be preserved. 7. Planning decisions should adopt a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. However, designated heritage assets such as conservation areas are an irreplaceable resource. The process of change within the CA should therefore be managed that preserves or sustains and where appropriate enhances its significance. For the reasons given, the proposal would not accord within this approach. Although the harm to the CA would be less than substantial in this case, I am not persuaded that the public benefits of the proposal, primarily through the support given to the local economy during the construction phase, would outweigh this harm. 8. Against that background, I conclude on the main issue that the proposed development would significantly harm the character and appearance of the local area. Accordingly, it is contrary to Policy H20 of the Craven District (outside the Yorkshire dales National Park) Local Plan, which aims to ensure that dwelling extensions respect the original property. There would also be a conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework regarding the protection of heritage assets such as conservation areas, and with the statutory duty. This duty requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. 9. Once complete, the proposal would provide the opportunity to create additional accommodation in the roofspace that would, in turn, enhance the living conditions of the appellant. It would also make efficient use of the property. I also acknowledge that Gargrave Parish Council and adjoining occupiers raise no objection. I also note that the appellant sought to work with the Case Officer to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, none of these considerations outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR