Construction of a small dormer window to existing loft room on rear roof slope

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 September 2026 by R Hall BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011486 41 Hayfield Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX2 6TX  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 Robert MacDougall-Davis against the decision of Oxford City Council.  The application reference is 26/00302/FUL.  The development proposed is described as ‘construction of a small dormer window to existing loft room on rear roof slope’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of a small dormer window to existing loft room on rear roof slope at 41 Hayfield Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX2 6TX in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 26/00302/FUL, subject to the following conditions. 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan (dated 06 February 20206); Proposed Plans (Drawing No. 10); Proposed Elevations (Drawing No. 11). Preliminary Matters 2. As the proposal is in a conservation area, I have had special regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act). 3. The Government revised the National Planning Policy Framework on the 17 August 2026, after this appeal was submitted. This took effect from the day of publication. I have consulted the main parties on the new Framework and have taken any comments into account in this decision. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal building and the local area, bearing in mind the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the North Oxford Victorian Suburb Conservation Area (the CA). Reasons 5. The CA covers an area encompassing the estate developed by St John’s College, with large villas in the east, bound by the Cherwell, and terraced housing in the west, bound by the Oxford canal. Much of the CA is residential but it also includes Appeal Decision 6011486 2 the Grade I listed Radcliffe Observatory with the linked house in the south, as well as the Grade I listed Church of St Philip and St James. Its historical importance derives in part from the small number of notable architects involved in its development, resulting in its buildings having a cohesive appearance notwithstanding variations in their design and scale. In addition, there is a uniformity to the layout of housing along each street, characteristic of a Victorian suburb. Accordingly, I find that the significance of the CA, insofar as it relates to this appeal, to be primarily associated with the concentration of Victorian residential buildings of varying scales, characteristic of their historic status differentiation. 6. Hayfield Road (the Road) is comprised of modest terraces of eight houses per block, fronting on to both sides of the road. The terraces have shallow pitched roofs with consistent placement of chimneys. From the Road, the terraces display a high degree of consistency in building design, materials and form which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. This elevation would be unaltered by the proposal. 7. From the canal towpath and nearby bridges, visibility of the rear elevation of the appeal building and adjacent terraces varies. Views of the terraces are interrupted by mature vegetation in gardens and along the canal towpath. There is currently an absence of dormer roofs along the terraces, however velux windows of different sizes and placements have been added to the rear roof slopes. As such, whilst the overall form of the roof slopes are consistent along the terraces, there is already some differentiation in the appearance of these roofs. When open, the velux windows break the line of the rear roof slopes. In addition, there is considerable variation in the style and form of single storey rear extensions and outbuildings, as well as different garden designs leading down towards the canal. This variety adds interest in views from the canal towpath. It is also characteristic of the status differentiation between the more formal, highly consistent front elevations, and the less formal rear elevations and rear gardens, where there is much greater variation. 8. The proposed dormer window would project from the rear roof slope. Whilst positioned at the top of the roof slope, it would not protrude above the existing ridge line. Moreover, its flat roof would appear parallel with the existing ridge. In addition, it would be modest in size relative to the area of the rear roof at No 41. As such, the majority of the rear roof slope at No 41 would be unaltered by the proposal and therefore the proposed dormer would appear subservient to it. Furthermore, its placement would be symmetrical with the first-floor windows below it, helping it to assimilate with the building’s existing features. In addition, the use of high-quality materials, including lead cladding, would not detract from the historic appearance of the building and would blend with the colour palette of the existing roof. In the absence of other notable features on that roof, it would not lead to a cluttered appearance. 9. The proposed dormer would be visible in some views from the canal towpath. From there, given the intervening distance it would appear very modest in scale. Together with the use of matching materials and its neat positioning within the roof slope, it would not appear prominent. Moreover, due to the proximity of the adjacent terraces and the presence of vegetation within rear gardens, the extent to which the side profile of the dormer would be visible would be highly limited. Whilst there are no other dormers on these terraces, a dormer of this nature would not Appeal Decision 6011486 3 appear as an unusual feature for a terraced building such as this. Furthermore, given the variety of rear extensions, the proposed dormer would not be a particularly noticeable addition, even taking into account that views from the canal towpath are from lower ground. As this assessment is context specific and relates to the specific design of this proposal, I foresee no potential for allowing this proposal to set an unwarranted precedent. 10. Therefore, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the appeal building. In addition, it would preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. Consequently, the proposal would satisfy the requirements of the Act. It would also accord with Policy HE9 of the Framework which includes a requirement to retain and conserve buildings and other features which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area where possible. The proposal would also comply with Policies DH1 and DH3 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 (June 2020) (Local Plan) and Policies HO2 and HO3 of the Summertown and St Margaret’s Neighbourhood Plan 2019. Together, these generally seek to ensure proposals achieve high-quality design and respect the historic environment. Conditions 11. In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition listing the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty and ensuring the proposals achieve an acceptable appearance. The Council’s ecologist recommended conditions in the event of the proposal being approved. The submitted Bat Survey (January 2026) found that the building had negligible suitability for roosting bats. Also, there are two swift nest boxes already installed on the building. Given the minor nature of the proposals, conditions requiring additional ecological surveys and installation of a bat roosting device is not considered necessary to make the development acceptable. Therefore, these are not imposed. Furthermore, as the building is not listed and the extent of the proposed alterations are modest, a condition requiring joinery details at 1:10 scale is not necessary in addition to the details already provided. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. R Hall INSPECTOR