An Enforcement Notice was served on the appellant requiring the removal of the dormer. No discussion took place with the regarding the submission of a retrospective planning application to remedy the breach of planning control as the Council felt the breach of planning was so severe that an Enforcement Notice was needed to remove the dormer. There is no requirement for the Council to seek a retrospective planning application.
The appeal was made on grounds (a) that planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice, (f) the steps specified in the notice to satisfy the breach were excessive and (g) that the time given to comply with the notice is too short as set out in Section 174(2) of the 1990 Act.
The appeal related a small dormer window built on to the front elevation of the pitched roof of the 2 storey terrace house. The dormer has a flat roof, a wide but shallow window and is clad to the front and sides with roofing slate to match the main roof.
The decision turned upon the acceptability or otherwise of the effect of the dormer on the appearance of the street scene.
The Council’s objection to the front dormer at No. 233 Windsor Road was that, in their view, it has an unacceptably detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area.
The appeal front dormer window replaced a smaller, lawful dormer on the front elevation of the roof at No. 233. The Inspector did not consider the dormer to be of high design, it was not so intrusive in the street scene that it should be removed. The new dormer was considered to be subservient to the main roof slope and is not dissimilar in scale and form to other front dormers to several houses fronting this part of Windsor Road.
The Inspector found no significant conflict with local policy drawn up to safeguard the street scene and the immediate environment from extensions of unacceptably poor design or excessive scale.
The appeal on ground (a) succeeds. Planning permission was therefore granted to retain the dormer extension at No. 233 Windsor Road.
It was not necessary for the Inspector to consider Grounds (f) and (g) as permission had been granted.
This appeal could easily have been avoided if the Council had chosen to enter into dialogue with the appellant to seek a retrospective application.