Appeal 3283918

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the host property and street scene.

The appeal property is one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. It has been extended and altered from its original form, including a hip to gable end roof alteration and rear dormer. The other half of the semi-detached pair retains its original hipped roof form but has a single front flat-roofed dormer.

[address] is characterised by similar pairs of semi-detached dwellings which are located quite close to the road forming a relatively continuous built frontage.

The proposed front dormer would be about twice the width of that on the adjoining attached dwelling and would occupy around two-thirds of the width of the enlarged roof of the appeal property. In addition, it would sit just above eaves level and extend almost up to the height of the roof and its gable edge.

The Council’s Residential Design Guidance, 2016 (SPD) seeks to ensure that extensions respect the original building and its proportions and are not overly dominant. In respect of dormer extensions, it states that these should be sympathetic to the roof form, and generally not more than half the width and depth of the original.

The proposed dormer would not meet the guidance in the SPD and, in my view, would be overly large and out of proportion with the host dwelling, even in the context of the extended roof form. Furthermore, the proposed dormer would be unduly dominant given its size in relation to the roofslope.

The existing front dormer on the adjoining property is also somewhat larger than recommended by the SPD guidance, extending to a greater depth than that recommended. However, it is of much smaller width than that now proposed on the appeal property. The proposed dormer on the appeal property, at around twice the size, would, thereby, also have an unbalancing effect on the front elevation of the semi-detached pair, resulting in a ‘top heavy’ appearance.

Whilst on the site visit I noted that there are large flat roofed dormers visible on the rear roofslope of a small number of nearby dwellings; others, such as that on the appeal property, are not readily visible. The majority of dormers that are located on the more prominent front roofslopes are smaller and generally proportionate to the roofslope on which they are located. However, in any event, these are not predominant characteristics of the street scene of [address] and therefore the proposed dormer would appear incongruous in this context.

I find that the proposal would fail to complement the character and appearance of the host dwelling and street scene. As such it would conflict with Policies CS1 and CS5 of the [name] (2012) (CS), Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (2012) (DMP) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021)(LP) which seek to ensure that development is of the highest standard of urban design to create accessible, safe and attractive environments, that respects local context and distinctive local character. It would also satisfy the Council’s Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016) which in general terms seeks to ensure that development respects the character of the street scene and is complementary to the host property.

The Appellant has provided evidence of various dormer extensions within the wider area, mainly along [address] which runs parallel with [address]. The circumstances in which these various dormers were permitted is unclear but the Council states that the majority have either been in situ for some time or were not the subject of any planning permission. As such they would not have been subject to the current policy context. In addition, as indicated above, there are few properties along [address] with front dormers. Whilst these include one which is not dissimilar in size to that now proposed, that does not provide justification for allowing what I have found to be a harmful addition, contrary to current policy and guidance.

I therefore conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.