Loft conversion with rear dormer extension and velux roof windows to the front elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 May 2018 by A Parkin BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/18/3200778 10 Richmond Drive, Lymm, Warrington, WA13 9HE  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 Brendan Halligan against the decision of Warrington Borough Council.  The application Ref 2018/32196, dated 14 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 11 April 2018.  The development proposed is a loft conversion with rear dormer extension and velux roof windows to the front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed rear dormer extension on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a single storey semi-detached dwelling on the northern side of Richmond Drive, a residential street containing garden-fronted properties with tiled roofs. There are a mix of single and two storey dwellings along Richmond Drive, with the properties including and to the west of the appeal property being single storey bungalows on both sides of the road. 4. The proposed rear dormer extension, together with the loft conversion, would provide space for two en suite double bedrooms, a stairwell and a storage room. The front roof would incorporate three velux windows to allow light into the converted loft space. The proposed extension would rise some 0.2 metres above the current uniform ridge line of the semi-detached 10 and 12 Richmond Drive, for almost the entire width of number 10, and extend over most of the rear sloping roof of the property. The extension would have a flat roof constructed of a membrane, with tile cladding to the rear and side elevations. 5. My attention has been drawn to other rear dormer extensions in the area, which are considered to be similar to the development subject to this appeal. The circumstances for each extension are likely to be different, however, whilst on site I noted that 16 Richmond Drive has a rear dormer extension. I am not familiar with the details of this development, but can see that it differs from the development subject to this appeal in a number of respects, including that it does not project above the height of the ridgeline. I have taken account of the Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/18/3200778 2 effect of this development on the character and appearance of the area, but it has not influenced my decision in relation to this appeal, which I have considered on its individual merits. 6. The scale, massing and flat roof design of the proposed rear dormer extension would make it an over-dominant feature above the ridgeline of 10 Richmond Drive. For these reasons the proposed extension would be an incongruous feature in the street scene, readily visible from the west along Richmond Drive, an area characterised by bungalow housing, and would be harmful to the character of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy QE7 – Ensuring a High Quality Place, in the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy (2014), the guidance contained in the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance document (2003) and with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) in this regard. Other Matters 7. A separate planning application (Ref 2018/32188) for a single storey rear extension and external alterations to front elevation at this address was made at the same time as the application that is subject to this appeal, was refused by the Council on the same date, and is also subject to an appeal. Those proposals are not shown on the plans before me here, and I have considered this appeal on the information provided and on its own merits. Conclusion 8. For the reasons set out above the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the appeal is therefore dismissed. Andrew Parkin INSPECTOR