Alterations to form new front dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 April 2026 by K Mansell BA (Hons) MPhil TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007211 2 Trinity Street, Wakefield WF1 5BS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Sughra Ashraf against the decision of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council. • The application Ref is 25/02035/FUL. • The development proposed is alterations to form new front dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is the end terrace within a short run of four dwellings, the front facades of which have a unified appearance through the use of grey stone and render. The wider street scene within the vicinity of the appeal site is characterised by a strong and consistent terraced form, with uniform roof pitches and properties constructed in predominantly red brick with tiled roofs. A regular rhythm of chimneys, largely uninterrupted roof planes, and with few exceptions, a general absence of front dormer windows, further contributes to a cohesive street scene. 4. During my site visit I saw a grey clad front dormer extending across the full width and height of the roof of No 2, which has previously been refused planning permission by the Council and a subsequent appeal dismissed1. I observed similar dormers to the 3 adjoining dwellings in the terrace at Nos 4, 6 and 8 Trinity Street, which have likewise been refused permission and dismissed on appeal2. The appeal scheme would modify the front dormer to No 2 in both size and design. 5. The Council’s Residential Design Guide Part 2: Guidance for Householders Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (RDG SPD) includes advice on designing dormer windows. It notes that front dormers on unbroken terraced roof slopes will not usually be acceptable. It also provides more specific advice that 1 LPA reference: 23/02005/FUL and appeal decision reference APP/X4725/D/24/3338571 2 LPA references: 23/02133/FUL (No 4) and 23/02044/FUL (Nos 6 and 8) and appeal decision references APP/X4725/D/24/3343858 (No 4) APP/X4725/C/25/3358945 and APP/X4725/C/25/3358946 (Nos 6 and 8). Appeal Decision 6007211 2 dormer windows should be set off the sides and ridge of the roof, be aligned to the elevation below and not take up more than one third of the roof area. 6. The appeal scheme would be set in from the edges of the roof and set down from the ridge. However, it would still occupy a significant proportion of the front roof scape, extending to more than one third of the roof area. Furthermore, the window to the dormer would not line up with those below. It would consequently add significant bulk and massing to the house and fail to respect its original form and proportions. Even if Trinity Street is a vehicular no-through road, the appeal scheme would still be visible to neighbouring properties and pedestrians. By virtue of its scale and design, it would appear as a prominent and visually obtrusive addition to the host property that would also be harmful to the character of the street scene. The use of matching materials would not overcome this harm. 7. The appellant has drawn my attention to the approval of several pitched roof dormers nearby. However, I have not been provided with details of these planning permissions, nor their history. Consequently, I cannot be certain as to the detailed considerations that applied in those cases. On my site visit, I saw the front dormer to No 5 opposite the appeal property, which the Council advise is lawful through the passage of time. Its presence is therefore not a justification for permitting a scheme that is contrary to current policies and guidance, and in contrast to the prevailing unbroken front roofscape to terraced properties on Trinity Street. In any event, I am required to reach conclusions based on the individual circumstances and merits of this appeal, and my findings relate to the scheme before me. 8. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies SP23, LP56 and LP57 of the Wakefield District Local Plan 2036 (2024). These policies seek, amongst other matters, to promote good design that respects the host dwelling and contributes to the local distinctiveness and character of the area. It would further conflict with general design policies within the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance within the Council’s RDG SPD. Other Matters 9. I have carefully considered the appellant’s personal circumstances, including their strong connection to the appeal property and close religious and cultural ties to the wider area. My attention has also been drawn to the appellant’s well-being, including the effect of the planning process. However, no substantive or specific evidence in relation to health matters has been submitted. I recognise that the appeal scheme would add to the functionality of the property as a family home. However, there is insufficient evidence before me to justify the size and scale of the development, nor that it would be the only means by which the appellant’s needs could be met. I consequently attach moderate weight to these personal circumstances, which do not outweigh the significant and permanent harm that I have found would occur to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Nor does the absence of neighbour objections, nor any identified impact on the living conditions of neighbouring dwellings, justify development that would be harmful in this way. Appeal Decision 6007211 3 Conclusion 10. For the reasons above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations that warrant taking a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed. K. Mansell INSPECTOR