Loft conversion (Hip-to-Gable) with front dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 August 2026 by J Davis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012920 17 Totteridge Drive, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP13 6JH • 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 Mr Wajid Hussain against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref is PL/26/00339/FA. • The development proposed is described as ‘loft conversion (Hip-to-Gable) with front dormer.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Wajid Hussain against Buckinghamshire Council and this is the subject of a separate Decision. Preliminary Matter 3. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised in August 2026. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal are unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by such a course of action. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling. Whilst Totteridge Drive contains a variety of house types, including bungalows and chalets, the appeal property is positioned within a row of houses of a similar original design, character and appearance. 6. The appeal proposal is for a hip-to gable extension, with front and rear dormers. The Council raise no objection to the hip-to-gable extension which would be similar to that already carried out at 19 Totteridge Drive, or to the rear dormer. I agree with their assessment that these alterations would satisfactorily integrate with the host dwelling and the surrounding area. I shall therefore restrict my further consideration to the proposed front dormer. Appeal Decision 6012920 2 7. The Council’s Householder Planning and Design Supplementary Planning Document (2020) (SPD) whilst non-statutory, sets out useful guidance for householder development. It advises that dormer windows and alterations to the roof can have a serious impact on the appearance of a dwelling and that dormers should therefore be located on the rear of dwellings and kept as small as possible. 8. The proposed front dormer would be set down from the ridgeline of the dwelling and would also be set up from the eaves and set in from the side elevations. It would, nonetheless, exceed the width of the two-storey bay window below resulting in it appearing overly large in relation to existing window openings and other design features of the dwelling. Its box-like, flat roof form would sit awkwardly and look out of place with the hipped roof detail over the bay window. Overall, I find that it would be an overly dominant feature which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling and thus, the wider area. It would also conflict with the design guidance set out in the SPD. 9. From my observations on site, there are few examples along Totteridge Drive of two storey dwellings with front dormers, and none within the immediate row of houses within which the appeal property sits. The proposed dormer, due to its size, scale and flat roof design, would therefore stand out as a particularly incongruous feature in this part of the street scene. 10. I acknowledge that several of the bungalows / chalet-style dwellings along the road have front dormers and I have paid particular regard to the examples highlighted by the appellant at 45, 46 and 47 Totteridge Drive which are chalet style dwellings further to the west of the site. However, these front dormers are small in size, incorporate a hipped roof and are of an appropriate scale and design in relation to their host dwellings. There will always be circumstances where the guidance within the Council’s SPD is applied flexibly, and these examples do not provide sufficient justification for the appeal proposal which I have considered on its own merits and have found to be inappropriate in terms of its size, scale and design. 11. The appellant has also referred to other front dormers in the wider area, including at 73 Adelaide Road which I understand was allowed on appeal although I have not been provided with any further details. In any event, these developments are not viewed in the same context of the appeal site, and I therefore afford them little weight. 12. In conclusion I find that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area and accordingly, would fail to comply with Policies CP9, DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019) and the SPD which seek (amongst other things) to ensure development demonstrates attractive and high quality design and respects the character and appearance of the existing property and surrounding area. It would also fail to comply with the high-quality design objectives set out in the Framework. Appeal Decision 6012920 3 Conclusion 13. For the above reasons and having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Davis INSPECTOR