Proposed reduction of as built rear facing loft conversion dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2023 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2nd January 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/D/23/3328312 173 Aston Clinton Road, Weston Turville, Buckinghamshire HP22 5AD • 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 N Khan against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref 23/01672/APP, dated 31 May 2023, was refused by notice dated 26 July 2023. • The development is described as ‘proposed reduction of as built rear facing loft conversion dormer’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Background and Procedural Matters 2. An application for planning permission for ‘a loft extension to create a larger dormer’ at this property was previously refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed (Ref: APP/J0405/D/22/3311958) (‘dismissed appeal’). That scheme, which was under construction at the time of that appeal site visit, included a hip to gable roof extension, and the erection of a dormer within the rear roofslope. 3. Notwithstanding the description of the development in my banner above, which is taken from the application form, the scheme before me is for the retention of the hip to gable extension, and the creation of a rear dormer which would be smaller than the existing one which was considered in the dismissed appeal. I have dealt with the appeal as a proposed development, and on this basis. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area. Reasons 5. The host sits amongst two storey semi-detached pairs on this side of Aston Clinton Road. Viewed in the streetscene, notwithstanding some extensions and crown roofs, the properties have a fairly consistent style and appearance and a principally hipped roofed form. 6. In that context, the gable roof extension at No 173 does not reflect the predominant roof form in this part of the streetscene and it does, to a degree, unbalance the symmetry of this semi-detached pair. However, unlike in the dismissed appeal, the proposed rear dormer would be set well in from the Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/23/3328312 2 host’s western flank, such that its cheek would not be visible from the road. As a result, the scheme would cause only limited harm to the streetscene. 7. Nevertheless, the proposed rear dormer would be a rectilinear feature, which would be set only just down from the host’s ridge. Thus, whilst it would occupy much less of the rear roof than in the dismissed appeal, and it would be sited slightly higher up from the eaves and further from the party wall, it would still be a bulky addition, which would give that part of the host a three storey form. 8. Moreover, in views from nearby rear gardens, it would be seen in the context of the host’s hipped roofed two storey side and rear extension, a single storey rear projection, and the hip to gable extension. There would be an awkward visual relationship between the rectilinear dormer and the hipped roofed rear extension. Cumulatively, the overall affect would be a visually discordant building with jarring roof angles and forms, and extensions which overwhelm the original property. 9. The Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Design Supplementary Planning Document 2023 advises that flat-roofed rear dormers may be acceptable provided that they are subservient to the main dwelling, do not dominate the roof plane, and are informed by the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the area. With regard to extensions more generally, it states that the original building should remain the dominant element of the property and that they should not overwhelm the house from any given viewpoint. Having regard to cumulative impacts, the scheme would clearly conflict with that approach. 10. Additionally, whilst No 175 has two storey rear projections, the hipped roofed form on the main part of that house remains unaltered. The proposed dormer would therefore further unbalance this semi-detached pair. Considered cumulatively alongside approved development, and notwithstanding the use of matching materials, the scale, eclectic style and form of the resultant dwelling would appear at odds with the generally much more modest proportions and simpler appearance of the other properties in this row. 11. The appellant has provided details, including photographs, of other development in the area, including an approved scheme at 193 Tring Road (Ref: 19/03763/APP). However, whilst there may be some similarities between those extensions and this scheme, those examples are mostly some distance from this site, where the prevailing character is not the same, and they do not justify the poor design, and the consequent harm, here. 12. For the above reasons, the scheme would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area. It would thus conflict with Policy BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013-2033 (2021) and Policy H2 of the Weston Turville Neighbourhood Plan 2013-2033 (2018). Amongst other things, these require proposals to take into account the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings with regard to matters such as scale, form, massing, proportions, local distinctiveness and the vernacular character of the locality. 13. It would also conflict with the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2023) for good design which is visually attractive as a result of good architecture and which is sympathetic to local character; and it does not benefit from its presumption in favour of sustainable development. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/23/3328312 3 14. I have considered representations opposed to, and in support of, the scheme, some of which draw similarities between this proposal and other development in the wider area. However, having considered this scheme in this location on its planning merits, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR