Proposed roof dormer to the rear of the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 March 2020 by C Dillon BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 April 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/C4235/D/20/3245640 51, Elms Road, Heaton Moor, Stockport SK4 4PT • 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 Tim Hopkinson against the decision of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref DC/075142, dated 6 November 2019, was refused by notice dated 31 December 2019. • The development is described as a proposed roof dormer to the rear of the property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Notwithstanding the plans contained within the appellant’s evidence and also those referenced on the decision notice, the Council has clarified that the refused scheme is that shown on drawings ELM-101 and ELM-104, both dated October 2019. I note that these show a scheme that differs from the partly constructed dormer that was in situ at the time of my site inspection. I am satisfied that these are the drawings that were subject to formal publicity and upon which the Council’s decision was taken. Therefore, the appeal is determined on that basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed dormer on the character and appearance of the Heaton Moor Conservation Area, with particular regard to its scale, design and siting. Reasons 4. The appeal site is located within the Heaton Moor Conservation Area. The significance of this leafy, suburban Conservation Area is derived largely from the residential development that took place here during the late Victorian and Edwardian periods. The appeal site is a mid-terraced 2 storey dwelling. Its rear elevation which would host the proposed dormer is relatively simple in design in comparison to its grander front elevation. This is an important characteristic of many properties within this Conservation Area. 5. Whilst varying architectural influences are evident, visually the limited palette of materials creates a consistency to the Conservation Area’s historic character Appeal Decision APP/C4235/D/20/3245640 2 and appearance. The collective rear roof plane of the terrace within which the host property falls remains undisturbed in terms of its traditional roof covering and discretely placed conservation style roof lights. This characteristic is distinctive of the Conservation Area and makes the feature significant to the historical and architectural significance of this particular Conservation Area. 6. The rear elevation of the property that would host the proposed dormer is, particularly above ground level, visible from a number of short and medium distance public vantage points within and beyond the Conservation Area. Contrary to the appellant’s argument, I find that any differential in planning controls between the front and rear elevations of this terrace do not weaken the importance of this particular roofscape to its context. This rear roofscape commands similar significance to that of its front, given the views of it are more than infrequent glimpses between buildings. Indeed, uninterrupted views of this collective roofscape can be enjoyed from parts of Singleton Road, Laurel Road and Shaw Road. 7. Notwithstanding the appellant’s arguments that the appeal proposal is an Edwardian-inspired design, with an appropriate external finish and positioning, I find that the appeal proposal, by virtue of its scale, siting and design, would be discordant with the roofscape of the host property and wider terrace. It would represent a significant visual interruption and have an unduly domineering presence that would cause harm to an otherwise uniform roofscape. Although the property is not listed, the attributes of the existing roofscape contribute positively to the character and appearance of the host property, the associated terrace and therefore the historical and architectural significance of the Conservation Area. 8. It was observed that dormers are a feature of this area in a variety of guises. However, in terms of its design and scale relative to the host roof, I do not find that the appeal proposal sufficiently accords with the prevailing design principles of the historic vernacular relating to dormers in the Heaton Moor Conservation. 9. The particular planning circumstances of those cases cited by parties are not before me and, in any event, would not justify imposition of the harm that I have identified. Remaining matters raised by the appellant, relating to contradictions and inaccuracies in the officer report, the need for the dormer, and the associated economics of it, are not matters which justify the harm that I have identified. Neither is the existence or level of harm affected in this instance by the absence of public objection. 10. I find that the harm that would arise from the appeal proposal would be less than substantial to the character and appearance of the Heaton Moor Conservation Area, with particular regard to its scale, design and siting. From the evidence before me I have not identified any public benefits that would outweigh this. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 11. With particular regard to Conservation Areas, Saved Policy HC1.3 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (May 2006) requires that the siting, scale, materials and design of a proposal are sympathetic to the site and its surroundings, safeguarding features including skylines which contribute to the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, Policy SIE-1 of the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Appeal Decision APP/C4235/D/20/3245640 3 Strategy DPD (March 2011) seeks to achieve quality places by requiring proposals to have regard to site characteristics, including context and views. Policy SIE-3 of that plan seeks to protect the historic environment and requires harm to significance to have a clear convincing justification. The appeal proposal conflicts with these development plan policies. The Council’s evidence does however confirm that Policy CDH 1.8 of the Unitary Development Plan is no longer extant and therefore is not given any weight in this instance. 12. As the proposal would be an overly dominant feature within the roofscape, it is also contrary to the Council’s Extensions and Alterations To Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document (February 2011). This policy guidance seeks to ensure that proposals respect form, shape, symmetry, proportions of buildings and the character of the surrounding area as well as being designed to specifically preserve or enhance the character of a Conservation Area. 13. I therefore find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Heaton Moor Conservation Area. It would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area contrary to the expectations of s72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and would be in conflict with the development plan. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. C Dillon INSPECTOR