Hip to gable end roof extension with front and rear dormer windows. Single storey flat roof rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 August 2018 by Lynne Evans BA MA MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q1445/D/18/3204370 1 Eskbank Avenue, Brighton BN1 8SL  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 Justin Tait against the decision of Brighton & Hove City Council.  The application Ref: BH2017/04028 dated 6 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 April 2018.  The development proposed is hip to gable end roof extension with front and rear dormer windows. Single storey flat roof rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework 2018) came into force on 24 July 2018 and from that date policies within the Framework 2018 are material considerations which should be taken into account in decision making. Although the Council’s reason for refusal did not specifically refer to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 extant at the time of the decision, the Council has referred to it in its officer’s report. From reading all the information before me from the Appellant and the Council, I am satisfied that the revised Framework 2018 carries forward the main policy areas from the earlier Framework, as relevant to this appeal. Main Issue 3. The proposal includes for a hip to gable roof alteration with installation of front and rear dormers as well as a single storey rear extension. The Council’s decision notice only refers to the proposed front dormer and the Officer’s report indicates that the other parts of the proposal were not recommended for refusal. From my site visit and all the information before me I have no reason to take a different view. Accordingly, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed front dormer on the character and appearance of the existing property and on the street scene. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a modest, semi-detached bungalow on the west side of Eskbank Avenue, within a predominantly residential area with mainly semi- detached bungalows and some houses. I have noted that the Council does not Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/D/18/3204370 2 have records of each of the front dormers in the vicinity of the appeal property. However, I agree with the Appellant that dormers are a feature in the immediate and wider local area, including a variety of front dormers. Although the size of the individual dormers varies, most of these are set within the hipped roof forms, albeit some with alterations, and therefore do not extend across the full width of the property. 5. However, and although set in from the roof edges, the width of the proposed dormer across the extended roof width of the gable roof would result in a very large and bulky roof dormer which would be a visually dominant feature and would result in a ‘top heavy’ addition to the property. This would harm the character and appearance of the property. Gives its bulk and size and visual dominance it would also harm the street scene. 6. I therefore conclude that the proposed front dormer would harm the character and appearance of the existing property and the street scene. It would therefore conflict with Policy QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document 12 Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations as well as the Framework 2018, all of which seek a high quality of design which respects the local context. 7. I have noted the comments raised by the Appellant regarding the application process, but these are matters to be discussed with the Council, and my assessment is based on the planning merits of the case before me. 8. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. L J Evans INSPECTOR