Erection of a rear dormer window

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 July 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23rd July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/D/18/3203009 2 Fairview Cottages, Prinsted Lane, Prinsted, Emsworth PO10 8HR  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 Giles Babb against the decision of Chichester District Council.  The application, Ref. SB/17/03629/DOM, dated 25 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 26 March 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a rear dormer window. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area that lies within the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Beauty (‘the AONB’) and the Prinsted Conservation Area. In particular, the issue includes whether the character or appearance of the conservation area would be preserved or enhanced. Reasons 3. The appeal dwelling is the middle property in a terrace of three cottages. I saw on my visit that although there have already been some substantial additions to the terrace, in particular to Nos. 1 and 3 to either side, the proportions and simple design of the original modest Victorian cottages are still discernible. 4. In particular, the fully hipped slate roof of the terrace appears to have changed little over the years and this helps to ensure that, despite the other alterations, the terrace continues to make a positive contribution to the significance of the conservation area as a heritage asset. 5. However, the proposed dormer would occupy almost the entire rear roof plane of No. 2 and with its mid terrace position essentially dominate the rear of the terrace above eaves level. With only a small half hipped roof and not being set down from the ridge or away from the flanks and a minimal distance above the eaves the addition would have a very limited design merit and appear disproportionately large in relation to both No. 2 and the terrace as a whole. 6. The grounds of appeal argue that the two storey extension approved under ref. 17/01290/DOM will introduce an element of built form above the eaves. However, this is a modest hipped roof and I do not consider that it justifies the Appeal Decision APP/L3815/D/18/3203009 2 dominant further extension currently proposed. Nor do I see any design advantage from the two proposals being read together. 7. The appellant also argues that dormer would only be glimpsed from the public realm, but this is disputed in the representations of the consultees on the application. However, bearing in mind that Fairview Cottages form part of the conservation area, I do not consider that the exact extent of its visibility is the determining factor. In my assessment the dormer would harm the character and appearance of the dwelling and the terrace as a whole and in so doing would also fail to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, and to a more limited extent the AONB. 8. Accordingly, there would be conflict with the Council’s design guidance and adopted policies, in particular Policy 47 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 but supported by the Council’s other policies including Policies 4 and 7 of the Southbourne Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2015. The scheme would also be contrary to Government policy in Section 12: ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 9. As regards the latter (in paragraph 134), as a single roof extension the dormer would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset, but this does not in itself reduce the weight of objection to the proposal. Nor would this harm be outweighed by the modest public benefit of improved habitable accommodation to an existing dwelling in the area. 10. I also recognise the private benefit of the extra living space for the appellant and have taken this into account. However, for the reasons explained and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal fails. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR