Dormer window

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 September 2018 by S J Lee BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A4710/D/18/3208755 110 Oak Street, Elland, Halifax HX5 0LF  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant [outline] planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Asaf Hussain against the decision of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00606/HSE, dated 8 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 July 2018.  The development proposed is a dormer window. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a two storey stone back-to-back terrace fronting onto a narrow street behind a front garden. There is some variety in the built form along the remainder of the terrace, particularly at ground floor in terms of boundary treatments, outbuildings and extensions. However, apart from one prominent example at No 100, the terrace is largely free from significant alterations at roof level. This helps to maintain the traditional character and appearance of the terrace as a whole. 4. The Council has suggested that the example at No 100 has not been built in conformity with its planning permission. Whether this is the case or not, there are some stated differences between that which was approved at No 110 and the development before me. Most notably, the development would only be set down from the ridge by 500mm, compared to 1000mm in the permitted scheme. This means that the dormer would sit very high on the roof slope. Notwithstanding the 500 mm gap to either side, the height of the dormer combined with its substantial width and depth would unduly dominate the roof slope. The overall scale and bulk of the dormer would serve to erode the character of both the host dwelling and the terrace as a whole. 5. Moreover, No 110 sits closer to the junction with Savile Road than No 100 and thus would be a more prominent and visually intrusive feature than that which has already been built further along the terrace. The incongruous appearance Appeal Decision APP/A4710/D/18/3208755 2 of the dormer would therefore be highly visible to passers-by and nearby residents. 6. Whilst it may not be possible to position the dormer any lower on the roof slope and still create the space desired, this does not justify allowing something that would cause an unacceptable degree of harm. In addition, the appellant has suggested that the Council has approved a dormer with a 500mm set down from the ridge within a conservation area. However, I have not been provided with the full details of this case and thus cannot conclude with any certainty that the two proposals are comparable. 7. In any event, this does not alter my view that in this instance the overall scale and siting of the dormer and its resulting impact on the character and appearance of the area would be unacceptable. Accordingly, there would be conflict with policies H2 and BE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan (2006) which seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development respects or enhances the established character and appearance of existing buildings, is visually attractive and that the extension of existing housing does not harm the quality of the housing area. Conclusion 8. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. S J Lee INSPECTOR