Proposed loft conversion with rear facing 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: 2 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013293 24 Pillow Way, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, MK18 7RQ • 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 and Mrs Lijofi against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref is PL/26/01030/FA. • The development proposed is Proposed loft conversion with rear facing dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. 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 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two storey, detached dwelling with a pitched roof and large rear gable, positioned at the end of a row of similar houses served by a shared access in Pillow Way. The dwelling is sited on a corner plot and is bounded by public footpaths on two sides. 5. I have had regard to the Council’s non-statutory Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Design Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD). Principle DES63 of the SPD advises amongst other things, that dormer windows should be small and should sit appropriately on the roof-slope, well above the eaves line, well below the ridgeline and set in from gable ends. Rear roof slopes, which are less visible, may be able to accept larger additions but these need to be carefully designed as over- dominant or box-like roof extensions can be particularly incongruous. Flat roof dormers may be acceptable to the rear of properties provided they don’t rise above the main ridge, are subservient to the main dwelling and do not dominate the roof plane. Appeal Decision 6013293 2 6. The proposed rear dormer would be of considerable width, extending across most of the rear roof plane to both sides of the rear gable, with no meaningful set back from the side elevations. Its height would match that of the main ridgeline and it would be set only slightly above the eaves. Consequently, despite the use of matching materials, the dormer would appear as a highly dominant, box-like addition that would fail to be subservient to the main dwelling and would dominate the roof plane. In doing so, the dormer would significantly detract from the dwelling’s original pitched roof form and also diminish the prominence of the existing rear gable, causing harm to the dwelling’s character and appearance. 7. The side and rear elevations of the dwelling are also highly visible from the adjacent public footpaths and the proposed development would appear overly large and incongruous, resulting in further harm to the character and appearance of the area. 8. The appellant highlights that in many circumstances large rear dormers can be constructed under permitted development rights1. However, this is not a ‘fall-back’ position as permitted development rights for the original development were removed. The proposal therefore falls to be assessed against the relevant development plan policies and other guidance. 9. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policy BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (2021), Policy DH1 of the Buckingham Neighbourhood Plan (Made Version March 2026), principle DES63 of the SPD and the Framework. Collectively these policies and guidance require, amongst other matters, development to be of a high quality and to respect and complement the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings and the local distinctiveness and vernacular of the character of the locality. Conclusion 10. For the above reasons and having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Davis INSPECTOR 1 As set out in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)