Formation of room in loft with rear dormer and roof lights to front elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2018 By H Lock BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27th December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/D/18/3213125 16 Kimberley Road, St Albans, AL3 5PX  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 John Slavin against the decision of St Albans City & District Council.  The application Ref. 5/18/1084, dated 17 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 13 July 2018.  The development proposed is formation of room in loft with rear dormer and roof lights to front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property (a locally listed building), the terrace of which it forms part, and the relevant part of the St Albans Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a mid-terraced house in a residential area characterised by mostly terraced and semi-detached Edwardian housing. Along with many in the area, the property is ‘locally listed’, and within the ‘Folly Lane, Garden Fields & The Old Hospital’ (Area 7k) part of the St Albans Conservation Area. The associated ‘Conservation Area Character Statement for St Albans’ 2016 (CS) notes that the principal character of Area 7k is that of a network of small- scale, mid C19, artisan terraces, and late C19 terraced and semi-detached housing, which forms an attractive and architecturally coherent part of St Albans’ heritage of brick buildings. 4. The CS notes that throughout the area unsympathetic changes to windows, doors and architectural details can easily erode the iteration and rhythm of the C19 frontages, although it does not specifically mention the rear roofscape. The CS notes that the rear elevations of houses in Kimberley Road appear more prominent from the rear gardens of Ladysmith Road as a result of being on higher ground, but this would not apply to the appeal site; its rear elevation and that of the terrace of which it forms part would not be visible from Ladysmith Road, although it would be glimpsed in gaps between buildings from Goldsmith Way, on higher ground to the rear. Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/18/3213125 2 5. The proposal would not accord with the design aims set out in Policy 72 of the St Albans District Plan 1994 (DP), in that its architectural style and roof form would not be compatible with the original building; it would not leave the original building form predominant, nor repeat the original roof form, as required by DP Policy 85. It is evident from the CS that the locally-listed buildings in Kimberley Road are important for their group contribution to the character of this part of the conservation area, rather than their individual value. I am mindful that a number of planning permissions for large flat-roofed dormer windows have been granted in Kimberley Road and neighbouring streets in recent years, although some appear more sensitive to the setting than others, depending on their prominence in the street scene. 6. The appeal does not include full details of these permissions. Other than partial extracts from the decision notices, there is little to explain the rationale for those decisions, particularly as the provided Council reports set out reasons for refusal. Whilst I am aware of the need for consistent decision-taking, there is also a requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area in exercising planning functions. 7. In exercising this duty, I do not find that the size and scale of the rear dormer window would be sympathetic to the existing property. The overall size of the dormer window and its proximity to the roof ridge, eaves and sides would be overly dominant on the property and the terrace of which it forms part, and would not appear subservient as suggested by the appellant. However, I do not share the Council’s view that the roofscape of this particular terrace is so uninterrupted that it should be protected. This is on the basis of the staggered ridge line and the disruption already created by the two-storey rear wings which break the roofline. In this regard, I agree with the appellant’s view that the erection of sensitively designed and located rear extensions ought not to unacceptably impact upon the significance of the locally-listed terraces. 8. Although I have had regard to the other dormer windows in the vicinity, I do not agree with the appellant’s view that these have a near-negligible impact on the overall appearance of the area. Moreover, dormer windows in the locality are not so prevalent that they are a defining part of the character of the conservation area. I accept that the proposal would not be seen in the context of the important façade of the property and terrace, and that the rear roof of the appeal site is not as visually prominent as some. However, the proposal would nevertheless be visible in public views from the road at the rear. Planting may screen views for part of the year, but the rear roof slope of the property was evident at the appeal site visit. 9. The appellant has identified a number of appeal decisions, most of which are for sites outside of the Council’s administrative boundaries. In the absence of fuller details of the developments, the site-specific contexts and the policies against which they were assessed they offer limited support to the proposal. 10. I note that this is a reduced scheme following the refusal of a previous application, ref. 5/2017/2759, but for the reasons outlined above I do not consider that the alterations have made the proposal acceptable. 11. The appellant has offered to landscape the front garden. This is supported by the CS and would be beneficial to the street scene, but it would not mitigate Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/18/3213125 3 the visual impact of the proposed roof extension. A landscaping condition would not therefore address the identified harm. 12. I therefore find that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of this part of the St Albans Conservation Area, but that this harm would be less than substantial1. On the basis of the information provided it is not evident that this harm would be outweighed by public benefits. I do not consider that creating a third bedroom would be material in the context of housing land supply, and no evidence has been supplied to demonstrate that the most significant housing requirement within the area is for 3-bed properties, as indicated by the appellant. I accept that the extension of smaller properties may be a means for growing families to afford to remain within the city limits but this would should not be at the expense of design and heritage considerations. 13. The proposal includes two rooflights to the front of the property. The Council did not oppose this part of the development and I share this assessment. 14. I therefore conclude that the size and scale of the proposed dormer window would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the appeal property, the terrace of which it forms part and this part of the St Albans Conservation Area. This would conflict with the aims of the Framework, and with the design aims of DP Policies 69, 72, 85 and 87, which requires extensions to locally listed buildings to preserve the architectural or historic interest. Although these policies are dated, they are broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. 15. For the above reasons, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. H Lock INSPECTOR 1 Having regard to paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework.