Appeal 3281311

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for loft conversion with three front roof lights, rear dormer and increasing ridge height at [site address] , [address], Ilford, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2637/21, dated 15 June 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos:18/749/001, 18/749/002, 18/749/003, 18/749/004 and 18/749/005.

The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area.

The appeal site relates to a semi-detached house in a residential street with a variety of house designs and varied roof scape. The house and other similar properties along the street have substantial 2 storey rear wings with hipped roofs which project out from just below the main ridge and dominate their rear elevations. A rear dormer at [address], close to the appeal site, is a similar scale to the proposed development, as acknowledged by the Council, albeit approved under permitted development rights. Also, large rear dormers on houses in [address] are visible from the appeal site and neighbouring properties. I do not therefore share the Council’s view that large dormers are out of character with the area.

The proposed dormer would be set back from the eaves and in from one side of the roof, but not to the extent proscribed in the Redbridge Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (SPD). It would also extend directly from the raised roof ridge and thus not conform with the SPD in this regard. However, despite the dormer extending across the roof it would be interrupted by the projecting rear wing, which in my view would remain the dominant feature. As such, I do not consider that the proposed development would be unacceptably visually intrusive and therefore harmful to the appearance of the host property.

Views of the proposed development from the rear of houses along the street towards [address] would be largely obscured by the rear projecting wings on neighbouring houses. From the rear of houses on the other side of the appeal site, on [address] as it approaches [address], the rear wing on the host property would continue to be the dominant feature and would partially block views of the proposed dormer. Mature trees and hedges in gardens behind the appeal site would screen most views of it from the rear. Where there would be views of the proposed development, from some rear gardens and houses on [address], they would be at an angle rather than direct. Also, as large dormers are already a feature on the rear of properties on that street, and given the varied roofscape around the host dwelling, I do not consider the proposed development would appear out of keeping and harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not conflict with the aims of Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2018, the SPD, and Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021) which require good design that respects local character and is subordinate to the existing building.

I have had regard to other matters raised including the effect of the proposal on nearby residents’ living conditions. However, I agree with the Council’s assessment that given the separation distance between the proposed development and their property there would be no significant impact.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, in the interests of certainty, and a condition requiring materials to match that of the host property to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.