Two side dormers at The Conifers, School Lane, Old Somerby

What was proposed

The application sought two tile-hung dormers on the side elevations of a rear extension.

“Description of the proposals 2.1 This is an application for the erection of two dormers to the side elevations of a rear extension. The proposed materials would be tile hung to match the existing roof. The proposed western dormer would measure 4.7 metres in length and 1.7 metres in height. It would protrude 2.9 metres at its furthest point. The proposed eastern dormer would measure 2.4 metres in length and 1.7 metres in height.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site contains a detached one-and-a-half-storey dwelling, with earlier permission for a rear extension and later amendments.

“Description of Site 1.1 The existing property is a detached one-and-a-half-storey dwelling, situated on School Lane, Old Somerby. Planning permission was granted under S21/1714 for the erection of the two storey rear extension to the property, which was subsequently amended under S24/1514. The application site is surrounded by dwellings of varying scales and designs, with open countryside to the north.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the dormers were not modest, would not complement the dwelling, and would harm the street scene and area character.

“Chapter 6G: Extensions states that: Dormers are expected to be of modest size and to match or complement the existing building - their suitability will be assessed in relation to site context. It is the Officer assessment that the proposed size of the dormers are not modest in scale and would not be a complimentary addition to the host dwelling. As such, this application is contrary to the Design SPD.”

“The existing dwelling features a raised rear extension that functions as one-and-a-half storey where this development is proposed. The raised elevation of this proposal, in conjunction with the single storey nature of the adjacent dwellings, would make the dormers readily visible from the streetscene. The proposal has been assessed against the Old Somerby Neighbourhood Development Plan, Policy 1 – Residential Development.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council raised privacy concerns, highways officers did not object, and one public objection cited intrusion, overlooking and reduced privacy.

“Representations received as a result of publicity 6.1 This application has been advertised in accordance with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement and one letter of representation has been received. The points raised can be summarised as follows: 1x Objection: Overbearing and intrusive 2. Overlooking onto patio and garden area 3. Reduced privacy…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker spoke against the application and the applicant spoke in support during the public speaking session.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed the bathroom, possible revised plans, non-opening windows, earlier obscure-glazing concerns and potential overlooking of the neighbouring garden.

“It was requested that the applicant provide more information on the unsuitability of their current bathroom arrangement. The applicant explained that there was a region of the bathroom currently inaccessible, rendering it difficult to include a shower. • It was explained by an officer that the applicant could come with a revised application post-decision, then they had the opportunity to.”

“A Member asked for clarification on whether the windows were able to open in the proposal, and it was confirmed that the windows were glazed and non- opening. • A member commented that given the nature of the application being for a bathroom, it was likely that the applicants would return to request the windows to be opening.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Permission was refused because the dormers’ design and scale would harm the host dwelling and surrounding street scene, with no material considerations outweighing the conflict.

“To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:”

“By virtue of the design and scale, the proposed two dormers would result in a harmful impact to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and the surrounding street scene. As such, the application scheme is contrary to the NPPF Section 12, Policy DE1 of the Local Plan, 6G of the Design Guidelines for Rutland & South Kesteven. There are no material considerations that would outweigh this fundamental conflict with the development plan.”

Officer report