Construction of front dormer and installation of cladding to rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 June 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z1775/D/18/3200231 25 Battenburg Avenue, Portsmouth, PO2 0SJ  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 Steve Stokes against the decision of Portsmouth City Council.  The application Ref 17/02031/PLAREG, dated 24 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 February 2018.  The development proposed is the construction of front dormer and installation of cladding to rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. I use the Council’s description of development which is more precise than the application forms; I note the Appellant also uses this on the appeal form. 3. The development is largely completed; this does not alter the way I consider the merits of the proposal. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached house on a corner plot. The road is of established residential character with broadly similar two storey semi-detached and terraced, mainly hipped roof, dwellings which all come together to create a neighbourhood of pleasing appearance and streetscene coherence. The proposal is as described above and would assist with bedroom and en-suite accommodation in the roofspace. 6. The host property stands out because of its corner position and the works which have taken place to the roof. A hipped flank has been replaced by a gable, a large grey clad box dormer is positioned to the rear, and a front smaller box dormer in similar cladding is positioned above a bay, towards the party wall. The combination is, to my mind, most unfortunate in visual terms, Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/D/18/3200231 2 top heavy, and could not be said to represent good quality agreeable design. The application which has been appealed relates primarily to the front dormer. I could not condone this structure as built or otherwise clad. It is simply too dominant, out of sync with the original roof form, and visually obtrusive. It is too large in all dimensions and lacks any great degree of subservience or subtlety. It runs too high with its roof effectively landing at the ridge of the main house. The roof finish or barge boards around the top are excessive and out of proportion. In summary it does harm the appearance and character of the house and the immediate area. It is jarring on the eye in its own right and in combination with the other roof alterations. 7. Policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan calls for, amongst other matters, well designed schemes with excellent architecture being used for changes to existing buildings with regard paid to achieving appropriate scale and appearance for a particular context. I conclude that the appeal scheme would run contrary to this policy. Other matters 8. I do understand the wish for additional accommodation and I can appreciate that these works were intended as part of a greater refurbishment scheme internally and externally. Externally this may well include an intended use of cladding. I recognise the willingness of the Appellant to change the external materials used albeit it is more the overall sizing and design which to my mind are of greater significance. 9. The Appellant cites a dormer which has gained planning permission at No 37 Battenburg Avenue. I do not know the full circumstances of that case but I would say that the prominence of the host building due to positioning and building lines is less pronounced within the streetscene than the corner appeal property and that this dormer does lie below the ridge and has a more subtle barge board and roofing arrangement. Even then I am not convinced that No 37’s structure adds positively to the streetscene and I do not see it necessarily as a benchmark or a precedent. In any event I must determine the case before me on its own merits and assessed in its own immediate and wider context. 10. I have sympathy for the Appellant having, for one reason or another, progressed with works without planning permission. There has clearly been considerable expenditure on the project. Nevertheless to be fair to all I have to determine matters as I would with a proposal which was not in situ and I would not be allowing an appeal for this work if I had been presented with plans-only rather than built-reality. 11. On any question of what elements of the overall roof works at this property might or might not be ‘permitted development’, and how any of this might be externally finished, I would leave with the Local Planning Authority. I am determining the specific proposal before me which was submitted as one planning application and determined by the Council in this vein and I shall not issue a split decision on this matter. 12. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above. Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/D/18/3200231 3 13. I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered; the Council’s policy which I cite mirrors relevant objectives within the Framework. Overall conclusion 14. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR