Retrospective dormer to front of house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 February 2019 by Jamie Reed DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/18/3213345 17 Edinburgh Avenue, Armley, Leeds LD12 3RG • 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 Amjid Razak against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref 18/03799/FU, dated 13 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 August 2018. • The development is described as ‘retrospective dormer to front of house’. ‘ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue to consider is the effect of the dormer window on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Preliminary Matter 3. It is clear from the appeal submissions and from my site visit that the dormer window has already been constructed. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that the development has already occurred. Reasons 4. The appeal property is an end terrace, 2 storey `back-to-back’ dwelling situated within a neighbourhood of properties of similar construction. A significant number of dwellings in the vicinity feature dormer windows to the front, of varying sizes and design. The box dormer window which is the subject of this appeal is finished in white cladding and the exterior walls of the property are finished in a cream coloured render. 5. Whilst the dormer window has been constructed in such a way so that it is set down from the ridge line of the roof and set in from sides, it has been built flush with eaves of the house and as a result, no roof slope remains in between the eaves and the dormer window. Such an arrangement adds unnecessary bulk to the dormer window and fundamentally changes the character and appearance of the appeal property by significantly altering the original roof form. When viewed from street level the appeal property now presents itself more as a 3 story dwelling with a virtually flush façade from ground floor to the dormer window. This 3 storey appearance is further emphasised by the use of the light coloured render and white cladding. There is little left to see of the Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3213345 2 original pitched roof, other than the small sections to either side of the dormer window. 6. In their submission the appellant explains that they propose to replace the white cladding with vertically hung slates, in an attempt to make the dormer window less conspicuous in appearance. Whilst such actions may improve the appearance of the dormer window and help break up the overall appearance of the front elevation of the appeal property, it would not reduce the bulk of the dormer window nor would it overcome the harm that has been caused to the original form of the appeal property as a result of the positioning of the dormer window flush with the eaves. 7. The appellant draws my attention to dormers on other properties in the street and argues that such additions are characteristic features of the area. Some of the existing dormers are significantly smaller than the appeal dormer and would potentially comply with the Council’s design guidance, whereas others are likely to pre-date it. The Council has further indicated that there is no record of other dormers in the street having been granted planning permission. I observed that many are unsympathetic to the host property and as such their existence does not justify allowing the appeal, given the importance within local and national planning policy of good design. 8. Consequently, the dormer window is contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy (2014), BD6 and GP5 of Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) and HDG1 of the Leeds Householder Design Guide (2012). When read together these require extensions to be of a high quality design and respectful of the original scale of their hosts, including their roof form. Conclusion 9. Having had regard to all matters raised, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Jamie Reed INSPECTOR