Loft conversion to provide first floor bedroom and shower room with dormer to the front elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2019 by Adrian Caines BSc(Hons) MSc TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/C2741/D/19/3226014 10 Thorpe Street, York YO23 1NL • 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 D Fuller and Ms C Watson against the decision of City of York Council. • The application Ref 18/02950/FUL, dated 17 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 March 2019. • The development proposed is loft conversion to provide first floor bedroom and shower room with dormer to the front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The rear dormer windows did not feature in the reasons for refusal, but as they are present on the proposal drawings, they form part of the application for which planning permission is sought. However, as there appears to be no dispute between the parties over those works and it also appears that planning permission may previously have been granted for them (ref 7/02409/FUL), I shall confine my considerations principally to the proposed front dormer window. 3. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the front dormer window on the character and appearance of the building and area. Reasons 4. Thorpe Street is one of a series of Victorian terrace-lined streets running perpendicular to Scarcroft Road. The terraces have attractive frontages featuring well-proportioned vertical openings within the ground floor bay windows and under arched brick heads. Even though there are some front dormer windows, located mostly at the top end of the street towards Scarcroft Road, dormer windows are not a predominant or defining feature of the Thorpe Street roofscape. The rhythm created by the regular-spaced chimneys gives a pleasing character to the roofscape when viewed along its whole length. All of this combines to create a high-quality streetscape and a strong sense of place. 5. The proposed front dormer would have a pitched roof, sash-type window and slate hanging tile cladding. Despite the use of a window type and roofing material to match the existing property, the width, height and solid appearance of the dormer would dominate the front roof slope and disrupt the sense of Appeal Decision APP/C2741/D/19/3226014 2 rhythm in the roofscape. Furthermore, regardless of how it is aligned in relation to the existing openings, its proportions, including that of the window, would fail to respect the vertical proportions of the building. The plain modern facia design would also be at odds with the age and style of the building. Overall, the front dormer, by reason of its scale and design, would be a dominant and incongruous roof addition that would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the building and its contribution to the streetscape. 6. The presence of other dormer windows in the street is not a reason, on its own, to allow unacceptable development. They are smaller and different in design to the proposed dormer, and in any event, they do not exercise a significant influence on the character of Thorpe Street. I am also not persuaded of the need to create symmetry with the dormer on the adjacent end-terrace property, just because one exists there. I have considered the appeal proposal on its own merits and concluded that it would cause harm for the reasons set out above. 7. For all these reasons, I conclude that the proposed front dormer window would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the building and area. This would be contrary to the design objectives in Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), particularly paragraph 127, which seeks to ensure new development is visually attractive, maintains a strong sense of place and adds to the overall quality of the area. It would also be contrary in these respects to Policies GP1 (Design) and H7 (Residential Extensions) of the City of York Draft Local Plan incorporating the 4th set of changes of 2005, which have been approved for Development Management purposes and are consistent with the objectives of the Framework. 8. The Council has cited Policy D11 (Extensions and Alterations to existing Buildings) of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan 2018 in the refusal reason, however this Plan is not yet at a stage where it can be afforded significant weight in my considerations on this appeal. As such, whilst there is conflict with its objectives in relation to extensions and alterations, I give this Policy only limited, non-determinative weight in my decision. Other Matters 9. From the information before me, I have no reason to believe the rear dormer windows would cause any significant effects. As such, I have considered the possibility of granting planning permission for only that aspect of the appeal development. However, I have opted not to on the basis that the evidence indicates that there is already an extant planning permission in place for such development. Conclusion 10. Consequently, and for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Adrian Caines INSPECTOR