Side and rear dormers at 41 Bloomfield Rise, Bloomfield, Bath

What was proposed

The application sought side and rear dormers on a two-storey end-of-terrace dwelling.

“REPORT The application refers to a two-storey end of terrace dwelling located within the Bath World Heritage Site.”

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of side and rear dormers.”

Officer report

The site

The dwelling is at the end of a cul-de-sac beside the cricket ground, with prominent side and rear roof slopes.

“Bloomfield Rise is a Cul-De-Sac formed of short terraces of varying lengths. The terraces are in part characterised by their uniformity of roof form and materials, being of Bath Stone construction beneath tiled roofs, with those at the end of the terraces being hipped. The consistency in roof form is a positive feature of the streetscene which contributes to the attractive and cohesive character of the area.”

“No. Bloomfield Rise is one such end of terrace property, being situated at the end of the Cul-De-Sac where it terminates at Hampset Cricket Club. Given the dwelling's positioning adjacent to the Cricket Ground, both its side and rear roofslopes are highly visible and prominent given the openness of the adjacent land upon which the sport facility is located.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Two earlier roof enlargement applications were withdrawn after officers raised concerns about their design and appearance.

“This application follows two previous applications for enlargement of the dwelling's roof through installation of dormers and also in the case of the first application a hip to gable enlargement. In considering both of the previous applications, Officers raised concerns regarding the design and appearance of the enlargements and proactively engaged with the applicant in order to try and secure an appropriate form of development.”

“Ultimately, it was concluded in respect of 24/01984/FUL that: "..the scale, siting, form and design of the dormer would mean it appears as a dominant addition upon the dwelling's roofslope which would serve to cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the dormers would dominate and erode the dwelling’s roof profile and harm the surrounding character.

“The development proposed comprises of side and rear dormers. In this instance, the proposed side dormer would have a gabled design occupying a considerable portion of the side roofslope. It is unclear from the drawings and application form what materials would be used, but it is presumed that it would be formed of hung tiles beneath a tiled roof, which would match the host dwelling. These materials would be acceptable and could be conditioned.”

“Accordingly, by virtue of their scale, positioning and design the proposed dormers both individually and cumulatively would have an awkward arrangement, dominating and significantly eroding the characterful roof profile of the property. The additions would be highly visible given their prominent location and appear incongruous relating awkwardly to the roof of the host dwelling and each other.”

Officer report

Other planning effects

Officers found no significant residential amenity or highway safety harm, and no harm to the World Heritage Site’s outstanding universal value.

“The proposed development is within the Bath World Heritage Site; therefore, consideration must be given to the effect the proposal might have on the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site. In this instance, due to the size, location, and appearance of the proposed development it is not considered that it will result in harm to the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site.”

“Policy D6 sets out to ensure developments provide an appropriate level of amenity space for new and future occupiers, relative to their use and avoiding harm to private amenity in terms of privacy, light and outlook/overlooking.”

Officer report

Support for the proposal

The applicant and a ward member supported the scheme, citing local precedents, cooperation with officers and its claimed consistency with planning policies.

“Having reviewed the proposal, as well as the extensive and balanced evidence submitted by the applicant, I believe this application merits careful and objective consideration by the committee, particularly in light of its policy alignment and local context. The applicant has demonstrated a sustained willingness to cooperate with Planning Officers across two previous application stages, both of which were withdrawn in good faith to address specific concerns.”

“Given this background, I respectfully request that the Planning Committee have the opportunity to consider this case directly to ensure a balanced and consistent interpretation of policy and precedent. The applicant believes that this proposal reflects the kind of thoughtful, modest home improvement that Bath and North East Somerset rightly seeks to support - balancing resident needs with planning integrity.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support, while Councillors Steve Hedges and Joel Hirst made a statement supporting the application.

The committee debate

Members heard that the dormers had been assessed together, considered local approvals and debated whether the proposal was out of keeping.

“In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed: The application for both the side and rear dormer windows had been assessed as a whole and considered to be inappropriate. The other dormer windows in the area had been approved between 2016-2021 and there had not been a substantial shift in relevant policies during that time. There was no supplementary planning guidance relating to dormer windows.”

“Cllr Warren opened the debate and moved that the officers recommendation to refuse be overturned, and permission be granted as it would not be out of keeping due to the number of similar dormer extensions in the area. The motion was seconded by Cllr Halsall who expressed the view that the application would not have a detrimental effect on the house or the surrounding area.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was permitted subject to appropriate conditions.

“RESOLVED that the application be permitted subject to appropriate conditions.”

Minutes