Two-storey extension to dwelling (Resubmission of Application Ref 7/2019/2250)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 March 2021 by Helen B Hockenhull BA (Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 09 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/Q9495/D/20/3265611 44 Trinity Way, Keswick CA12 4HZ • 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 and Mrs R. Marrs against the decision of Lake District National Park Authority. • The application Ref 7/2020/2242, dated 21 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 1 December 2020. • The development proposed is a two-storey extension to dwelling (Resubmission of Application Ref 7/2019/2250). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal proposal forms a resubmission of a previously approved scheme for a two-storey side extension. I noted on my site visit that this was under construction. This revised scheme proposes the addition of a front dormer window to the front roof slope. As the two-storey extension already has planning permission and is not in dispute, my decision considers the acceptability of the front dormer only. 4. The appeal property forms a two storey end terraced house located on a corner plot. It has an asymmetrical roof design due to the topography of the area with a longer front roof slope to the front elevation. The dwelling is in a prominent location being clearly visible when travelling east along Trinity Way. Properties in the locality are modest in size and have a generally uniform appearance. I observed that there were no other dormer extensions in the area. 5. I acknowledge that the Authority have not referred to any specific adopted design guidance against which dormer extensions should be considered and they have not stated that a dormer extension would be unacceptable in principle. I have therefore assessed the proposal on its individual merits. 6. The proposed flat roof dormer would measure approximately 2 metres x 2.3 metres and project around 4.5 metres. It would have a square shape and Appeal Decision APP/Q9495/D/20/3265611 2 would be positioned on the left-hand side of the front roof covering nearly half of the front roof plane. Whilst the dormer is set below the ridge line and above the eaves of the host dwelling, it’s shape and size would result in a visually unattractive addition to the property. It would appear as a dominant feature on the roofslope and as the dwelling is highly visible in public views would cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 7. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies CS10 and CS11 of the Lake District National Park Core Strategy 2010 which seek to achieve high quality design and to reinforce local character and distinctiveness. It would also fail to accord with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework which aims to ensure that developments are visual attractive and sympathetic to local character. Conclusion 8. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Helen Hockenhull INSPECTOR