Dormer roof extension to rear of property and change of pitch to front gable

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 31 March 2021 by Mr Samuel Watson BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/Z3445/D/20/3265329 6 Turnberry, Amington, Tamworth B77 4NR • 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 Mrs Joanne Rogers against the decision of Tamworth Borough Council. • The application Ref 0424/2020, dated 3 November 2020, was refused by notice dated 15 December 2020. • The development proposed is a dormer roof extension to rear of property and change of pitch to front gable. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the host dwelling; and, • The living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook and light. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal site is set at the end of Turnberry, a cul-de-sac which is not characterised by any one style or size of dwelling. However, the dwellings on Turnberry and the neighbouring road, Lytham, are typically set closely to each other within small plots. The appeal site itself contains a large three-storey dwelling, with the second floor within the roof. The dwelling fronts on to the turning head serving Turnberry in a prominent position. The roof of the dwelling appears to have recently been increased in height to help provide additional accommodation in the roof. Of particular note on the front elevation is a three-storey front projection with hanging tiles above the ground floor, and a dormer window with a pitched roof, also finished with hanging tiles. 4. I find that increasing the height of the front projection and altering the pitch of its roof would result in only minimal visual changes to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Moreover, as the street scene is varied, the changes to the roof of the front projection would not be out of keeping, or jar, with the surrounding roof forms. Appeal Decision APP/Z3445/D/20/3265329 2 5. However, the proposed dormer at the rear of the property, by way of its large and boxy form, would result in a feature which is discordant with the host dwelling, harming its proportions and appearance. This is further exacerbated by the lack of any glazing which would not be in keeping with the pattern of fenestration on the existing host dwelling. Whilst at the back of the host dwelling, it is clearly visible from Lytham in views between properties as well as from the back of surrounding dwellings, were it would affect the appreciation of the character and appearance of the dwelling. While dormers are not uncommon within the street scene, including flat roof dormers, these are smaller than the proposal before me and include proportionate levels of glazing. I therefore find these examples bear little weight in favour of the proposal before me. 6. Although I noted some mature trees and hedgerows surrounding the site, these were not sufficient individually or cumulatively to screen the development from public views. Moreover, these could easily die off, be removed or otherwise reduced in size which would further increase the visibility of the proposal. During my site visit I did not note any meaningful change in land levels between the appeal site and Nos 12, 14 and 15 Lytham. While there may be a change in land levels, it does not significantly affect the relationship of the above buildings, nor my determination of the appeal. 7. The bulk, form and design of the proposed rear dormer would be an incongruous addition to the dwelling and would be harmful to its character and appearance. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy EN5 of the Tamworth Borough Council Local Plan 2006-2031 (LP) which expects development to, amongst other things, respect and reflect the existing local architectural characteristics. It would also conflict with Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (The Framework) which, amongst other things, requires development to accord with the clear expectations of plan policies, and take available opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area. Living Conditions 8. Nos 14 and 15 Lytham are to the south of the appeal site where the proposal would not affect direct sunlight to the rear windows or gardens of the two properties. Although No 12 Lytham is to the west of the appeal site, its distance from the proposal and the orientation of the dwelling means there would also be no unacceptable loss of direct sunlight. For all three of these neighbouring properties ambient light would also be protected by their distance and relationship to the proposal. Furthermore, given the relationship between the appeal site and Nos 12 and 15, neither property, nor their respective gardens, would be unacceptably affected by a sense of enclosure or a loss of outlook. 9. However, the existing outlook from the rear windows and garden of No 14 is somewhat restricted and is directed between No 12 Lytham and the appeal site. Therefore, the rear box dormer would form an intrusive feature within this outlook, by way of harming the openness between the dwellings. This would be exacerbated by the proposal effectively extending the rear wall up to the height of the ridge line which would be more visually intrusive than the existing roof pitch which slopes away from No 14. Moreover, the elevated position of the rear dormer so close to the boundary would appear overbearing and intrusive Appeal Decision APP/Z3445/D/20/3265329 3 for the occupiers of No 14 when using the garden. Cumulatively this would make the outlook from No 14 and its garden, less pleasant as a result, to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers. 10. Given the height and scale of the crown of the tree within the rear garden of No 15 it is likely that it impacts on the outlook from, and light to, the rear of Nos 14 and 15 when in full leaf. However, this is existing and does not justify the harmful development before me. 11. I therefore find that, by way of its height and close siting, the proposed rear dormer would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers at No 14. This is contrary to Policy EN5 of the LP which, amongst other things, requires development to minimise or mitigate impacts on occupiers of neighbouring land including the sense of enclosure. Other Matters 12. I note that there is some disagreement between the parties as to the scale of the existing swimming pool within the rear garden of the appeal site, however, this does not directly relate to the proposal before more and does not affect my determination of the appeal. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Mr Samuel Watson INSPECTOR