Loft conversion with rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 November 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/18/3210350 4 Millbeck Approach, Morley, Leeds LS27 8WA  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 M Davies against the decision of Leeds City Council.  The application Ref 18/03594/FU was refused by notice dated 31 July 2018.  The development proposed is a loft conversion with rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. Following the determination of the planning application, the National Planning Policy Framework, dated July 2018 (the Framework) replaced the March 2012 version of this document. I have taken into account the Framework, which sets out the latest national planning policies, in my consideration of this appeal. Main issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development, firstly, on the character and appearance of the local area; and secondly, on the living conditions of the occupiers of 12 Millbeck Approach with particular regard to visual impact and privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The proposal is to erect a dormer extension on the rear roof slope of the appeal dwelling, which is a 2-storey house in a modern estate style residential area. The new addition would be set in from all four edges of the host roof and constructed of materials to match the existing dwelling. In these respects, the proposal would comply with the guidance contained within the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). 5. Nevertheless, the new dormer would be a sizeable addition, covering much of the rear roof slope. Due to its scale and elevated position, the new extension would be a conspicuous feature of the finished building. The considerable width and flat roof of the dormer would cause it to appear as an overly large ‘box like’ addition, the bulk of which would give the host building an awkward top-heavy appearance. This would be evident particularly from the rear garden of 12 Millbeck Approach, which backs onto the site. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3210350 2 6. In the vicinity of the site, I saw that the roofs of most buildings were free of significant built additions with no obvious instances in which dormers had been introduced. As the only example of such development in the area immediately around the site, the appeal scheme would be an uncharacteristic and visually intrusive addition. By disrupting the broad uniformity in the roofscape within the area to which No 4 belongs, the proposal would be a discordant form of development that I consider would harm the area’s character and appearance. 7. The appellant states that the proposed dormer would normally qualify as permitted development (PD) and thus could be constructed without planning permission. The Council does not contest this point. However, PD rights were removed as part of the original planning permission for the wider housing development. While the appellant considers this stance to be unjustified in the light of national policy and inconsistent with the approach taken to a nearby residential scheme at Low Moor Farm the fact remains that planning permission is required for the development sought. 8. Particular reference is made to 17 Sandpiper Approach, which has a rear dormer that is similar in style and size to the proposal. From what I saw, this extension serves to illustrate that changes to the roof of a building can have a significant impact on the character and appearance of that property and the area to which it belongs. Even if the Council has been inconsistent in its consideration of appeal proposal in the light of No 17, this is insufficient reason, in itself, to permit what would be an unacceptable form of development. 9. On the first main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would materially harm the character and appearance of the local area. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policy P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy (CS), Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (UDPR) and Policy HDG1 of the SPD. These policies and guidance aim to ensure that development achieves good design, resolves detailed planning considerations and respects the scale and form of the original building. It would also be at odds with the Framework, which states that development should, amongst other things, be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of the area. Living conditions 10. Of the properties close to the site, it is the occupiers of No 12 that are most likely to be affected by the appeal scheme given that the back garden of this property adjoins that of No 4. As the appellant points out, a generous distance separates the rear elevations of these buildings. However, No 4 occupies an elevated position relative to No 12 due to the notable difference in ground levels. The effect would be to accentuate the visual impact of the new dormer to a greater degree than might be implied if the visual assessment were made solely based on the separation distance. Due its scale, height and elevated position the proposal would visually dominate and overbear on the occupiers of No 12, which would feel intrusive. 11. Overlooking towards neighbouring properties from the new dormer would not be significantly greater than would be possible from the existing first floor rear window of No 4. The presence of the dormer window, which would be seen from the back garden of No 12 and other nearby properties, may heighten the perception of being overlooked. However, in my experience, some overlooking of this type is often a characteristic of dwellings in built up residential areas. On balance, overlooking and the sense of being overlooked by the occupiers of Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3210350 3 No 12 would not be so great as to justify withholding planning permission if the appeal scheme were acceptable in all other respects. 12. Notwithstanding my favourable finding on this latter point, I conclude on the second main issue that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 12. Accordingly, it conflicts with UDPR Policy GP5, CS Policy P10 and Policy HDG2 of the SPD insofar as they aim to safeguard residential amenity. Other matters 13. Once complete, the proposal would provide additional accommodation in the roof space that would enhance the living conditions of the appellant and his family. It would also make efficient use of the property. I acknowledge that the appellant consulted neighbours ahead of the application submission and that no objections were raised by them. However, these considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. 14. The appellant is critical of the Council’s stance, considering it to be biased, its appraisal to be sensationalist and inaccurate and the reasons for refusal to be poor. Given the nature and scale of the proposal and its prominence when viewed from No 12 in particular the Council had reasonable planning grounds for its decision. Those concerns are clearly expressed in the reasons for refusal. 15. It is true, as the appellant states, that the proposal could not reasonably be described as a front dormer given its position at the back of the house and not directly facing the highway. Even so, I am not convinced that the Council’s assessment that the proposal should effectively be treated as such in terms of its street scene appearance unduly swayed its decision or that the reasoning to refuse permission was flawed as a consequence. 16. The decision notice includes an informative statement that the Case Officer sought to work positively with the applicant/agent, which the appellant considers to be untrue and contrary to national policy. This appears to be a standard procedure statement, which often appears on decision notices. I note the appellant’s concern that it does not accurately reflect the particular circumstances of this case. 17. The Council raises an additional objection that, if approved, the new dormer would set an undesirable precedent because others could follow suit. However, I disagree. Each case should be assessed on its own planning merits, as I have done in this instance. Conclusion 18. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR