Appeal 3276026

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The proposed extension had already been constructed at the time of my site visit. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey terraced dwelling located in [address]. The road is comprised of terraced properties, built to a similar design, some of which have been previously extended with rear dormers. The uniformity in the design and appearance of the properties defines the character of the area and creates a coherent street scene.

The rear dormer spans the width of the roof slope and is of a significant height with a vertical face which protrudes above the original ridge of the roof. This makes the dormer partly visible from the street. The excessive height of the vertical face disrupts the uniformity of the ridge line of the terrace and appears as a visually jarring addition to the property. Consequently, due to its excessive height and width, the dormer dominates the roof slope and is a bulky and obtrusive addition to the property which fails to harmonise with its surroundings and therefore is detrimental to the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area.

Furthermore, the rear dormer does not comply with the guidance in the Supplementary Planning Document Housing (November 2016) (SPD), which states that vertical steps at the ridge should be avoided.

I note that the rear dormers at the adjacent dwelling at No 10 along with Nos 2 and 4 also have a vertical step at the ridge. However, it has been stated that the dormers at Nos 2 and 10 do not have planning permission. Notwithstanding this, the dormer at No 4 has been constructed with a vertical upstand that appears to be partly set down at the sides which lessens the visual impact of the upstand, while the dormers and resultant vertical upstands at Nos 2 and 10 do not span the width of their respective roofs. Consequently, these existing examples are not directly comparable to the proposal before me. Moreover, though I note the existence of these other dormers they are the exception and not the rule and I do not consider that they are characteristic of the area. As such, I do not consider that these examples justify the appeal proposal.

My attention has been drawn to two appeal decisions that were allowed in a neighbouring London Borough. The appeal at 2A Mandrell Road1, London, was for the demolition of existing warehouses and the erection of terraces of four 4 bed dwellings. The new dwellings would include rear dormers that were set below the ridge line. The appeal at 18b Margate Road2, London, was for a rear roof extension which would extend across almost the full width of the house and above the roof of an existing outrigger, however there is no mention of a vertical upstand above the roof ridge. Moreover, I cannot be certain that the street scenes or contexts of these other sites is similar to appeal site and street scene. As such, these previous appeal proposals are not directly comparable to the scheme before me. In any case, this appeal has been determined on its own merits.

For these reasons, the rear dormer and increase in ridge height causes significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies DMS1 and DMH5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan Development Management [name] (March 2016). These policies require development to integrate with its surroundings and contribute positively to local character and for extensions to buildings to not dominate the original building and to not harm the street scene or the building’s appearance. The proposal also fails to comply with the guidance of the SPD for roof extensions, which seeks to protect the character and appearance of the house and the area.

A Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Development has been granted at the appeal site for an amended roof extension3. This extension would have a similar rear projection to the appeal proposal but it would be set down below the original ridge line of the roof. As such the approved scheme would not be an obtrusive feature when viewed from the street and consequently would not 1 Appeal ref. APP/N5660/A/13/2207274 2 Appeal ref. APP/N5660/W/17/3182918 3 Certificate of Lawfulness application ref. 2021/2637 2 harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the wider area. For this reason, the presence of this fallback option does not justify the appeal proposal before me.

The SPD states that rear roof extensions between exposed party walls in the roof are best finished with an outward facing mansard-style roof and that roof extensions should extend over only 50% of the length of the back addition. However, it is further stated that these points would help to protect the effect of a roof extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. In this case the Council has not raised any concern regarding the living conditions of the neighbours and based on the evidence before me I have no reason to disagree. Nevertheless, this does not mitigate the harm that has been identified above.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed because of the conflict with the development plan and there being no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and, on that basis, I agree with the recommendation and shall dismiss the appeal.