Appeal 3285316

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the formation of a loft conversion incorporating rear dormer window, outrigger dormer, increase of ridge height by 250mm and 2 rooflights to front roof slope at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/2280/HD, dated 15 June 2021, 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 the following approved plans: 080/CAR/OS and 029/ANN/001.

I use the Council’s description of development which is more precise than the application form; I note that the Appellants also use this on the appeal form.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality.

The appeal property is a two storey mid terrace dwellinghouse within a road of established residential character. The street scene is pleasing and traditional in appearance with attractive front elevations and roof forms stepping elegantly along the sloping road. The rear garden areas back on to the dwellings fronting the street beyond and rear elevations are not open to public views. The proposal is as described above.

The planned works as seen from the front would represent minimal visual change. The roof lights would be acceptable in their own right, frequently appearing along this road. The raising of ridge height to a small degree would hardly be perceptible, continue to relate well to adjoining properties, retain features above the ridge, and not disrupt the important stepping of buildings as perceived from the street.

The intended development to the rear is of greater magnitude and might in many, if not most, instances be seen as excessive or lacking an architecturally sympathetic approach. However, the specific context here is very pertinent. I consider that in this instance I cannot ignore the fact that the scheme would almost mirror the out-rigger paired property and equally be very similar to works which have been undertaken within a short stretch of homes. I do not know the circumstances behind all the development but it does appear that some were constructed under ‘permitted development’ (pd)rights and some via specific planning permission.

Whatever the planning circumstances the fact is that the built context is now one of markedly extended and altered roof forms in this immediate locality. Whether or not the scene is ideal I have to take this on board and I do not see what is to be gained for the public good by refusing the scheme before me in this specific instance. In all the circumstances the scheme would be appropriate for this property and its tight environs. As it happens, in this case the scheme would not fall within pd, but from evidence presented it would appear relatively close to those realms; this is also of some relevance.

Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) have relevance to the case. Taken together, and amongst other matters, they seek to ensure that development is of appropriate design, sympathetic to and integrating with its surroundings, suitable in form and visual qualities for its context. This is reflected in the advice and objectives of the Council’s Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (SPD) and it is relevant that this document cannot be expected by way of detailed example or statement to cover every eventuality.

I conclude that the proposal would not conflict with the relevant development plan policies and the pertinent aims of the SPD.

The Council suggests the standard commencement condition along with the requirement for materials to match the existing building. I agree this latter condition would be appropriate in the interests of visual amenity. I also agree that there should be a condition that works are to be carried out in accordance with listed, approved, plans; to provide certainty. 2

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.