The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the installation of a rear dormer to facilitate the extension of an existing loft.
The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) consent for the installation of 1 x rear dormer to facilitate extension of existing loft. The appeal site is a two storey mid terrace dwelling house, located on the north side of Howlands. The application property is located within a row of 13 terraced houses. None of the 13 terraced houses in this group have dormer windows. The rear of this terrace and the appeal property itself is open to public views from a public footpath that runs across the rear of the terrace to the east.
Members considered the planning history and noted that a decision was granted on 9 July 2018 to construct 2 x rear dormer window to facilitate extension of existing loft conversion. On 27 September 2018 the Panel refused a decision to install 1 x rear dormer to facilitate extension of existing loft. This refusal was upheld by the Panel in January 2019 and this decision holds significant weight in the consideration of this appeal. The report noted that this appeal proposal was identical to the refused proposal.
The refusal related to the unacceptable width, scale and sitting of the proposed elongated dormer on the rear roof. In the Garden City, for roof alterations such as dormer windows, the Council has approved a new policy approach within the EM area which includes that consent will only be granted if the proposed alteration, when viewed from any surrounding public vantage point does not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and with wider amenities and values of the area.
The appellant had provided photographs of nine examples of dormer windows. One on Howlands, one on Sandpit Road, one on Hollybush Lane and others on Great Ley and Great Ganett. The Panel noted that none of these examples were for dormers at the appeal site or within the row of the 13 terraced properties. In respect of Sandpit Road and Hollybush Lane both of these properties were subject of enforcement investigations.
The following points were raised by Members and discussed:
· People often perceive one large window as being overlooked. It also creates an overbearing appearance at the rear of the dwelling.
· The size of having one large dormer in relation to the roof ridge was discussed; should it be lower down the roof? The Officer explained that in order to create the head height for the room the current dormers were at the correct position.
· It was confirmed that it was a delegated decision at the time when the two dormers were granted.
It was then moved by Councillor F. Thomson, seconded by M. Cowan and
1. That the previous Panel decision of the 31 January 2019 be upheld in light of the fact there have been no changes to the proposal before them and that there has been no change in policy that would result in a different decision being made to conflict with the Panel decision of the 31 January 2019.
2. That the appeal be dismissed.