Loft conversion with dormer and balcony

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 June 2022 by Adrian Hunter BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30TH June 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/D1265/D/21/3286029 11 Church Knapp, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 9XZ • 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 Corbridge against the decision of Dorset Council. • The application Ref WP/21/00054/FUL, dated 21 January 2021, was refused by notice dated 10 August 2021. • The development proposed is loft conversion with dormer and balcony. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of surrounding residents, in particular those of Nos 70-73 Bolton Close. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site lies within a residential area and comprises a two storey, detached dwelling. Surrounding dwellings, whilst being slightly different, exhibit a number of similar characteristics, which creates a feel of uniformity and regularity to the street scene. A number of properties have feature dormers to the front, whilst others have been altered through extensions. The adjoining dwelling has a dormer addition to the rear. 4. The appeal property is located at the end of a row of similar detached dwellings. As a result, the prominence of the appeal dwelling is minimised. Therefore, when viewed from Church Knapp, the rear of the appeal property is not readily visible. However, due to the surrounding topography, there are glimpsed views of the appeal site between the properties to the rear in Bolton Close. 5. Whilst views of the proposal would be limited by the existing appeal property and those around it, this does not remove the need for good design. The alterations to the roof and the insertion of the dormer and balcony would increase the overall bulk of the existing dwelling. Due to its size, mass and design, the proposal would create a form of development that would fail to sit Appeal Decision APP/D1265/D/21/3286029 2 comfortably with the existing dwelling. It would appear incongruous and therefore out of keeping with the general pattern of development in the area. As a result, the proposed development would create an addition to the existing property, which would detract from its character and appearance. 6. For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and, in this respect, would be contrary to Policies ENV10 and ENV12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (Local Plan), the Design and Sustainable Development Guide (2009) and the Framework. Amongst other things, these policies seek to secure good design and ensure proposals are compatible with surrounding developments. Living conditions 7. As a result of surrounding topography, the appeal site occupies a higher position compared to those to the rear. This, combined with its orientation means that there is already a degree of overlooking from the appeal property to those in Bolton Close. 8. Due to its position and its height in relation to surrounding dwellings, the proposed development would be likely to offer direct views into the gardens of properties to the rear, in particular Nos. 70 to 73 Bolton Close. Notwithstanding the level of overlooking that already exists, given the size and position of the dormer, the appeal proposal would introduce additional overlooking, to such a degree, that it would lead to further loss of privacy. This would harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents, in particular Nos 70-73 Bolton Close. 9. For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of surrounding residents and, in this respect, would be contrary to Policy ENV16 of the Local Plan and the Framework. Amongst other things, these policies seek to minimise their impact on the amenity of existing residents. Other Matters 10. In coming to this conclusion, I have also considered other developments within the vicinity of the appeal site, however, none are sufficiently comparable to the proposal to overcome my conclusion in relation to the harm that would be caused. 11. The applicant has referred me to existing permitted development rights to extend the property. However, such permitted development rights are largely universal, with the vast majority of properties afforded the right to extend without the need for planning permission, as such this carries only limited weight. In any event, this is not considered to outweigh the conflict I have found with the development plan. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Adrian Hunter INSPECTOR