Appeal 3286385

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion with Velux and dormer to rear roof slope and two conservation rooflights to the front roof slope at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3518/21, dated 12 August 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location and Block Plan and SK01.

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.

It was intended that the site visit would be undertaken as an access required basis but no one answered the door at the property when I attended. However, the rear of the property and the neighbouring dwellings could clearly be seen from the adjacent open space. I am satisfied that I can determine this appeal based upon the unaccompanied site visit which was undertaken

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area

The appeal property is a 2-storey dwelling forming part of a terrace of 3 dwellings situated within the Wanstead Village Conservation Area where there is a statutory duty to have regard to the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of the area. This duty is echoed in Policy LP33 of the Redbridge Local Plan (RLP) and Policy HC1 of the London Plan (LP).

No Conservation Area character assessment has been provided but what was observed were green spaces, including around [name], fronted mainly by terraces of housing but with commercial buildings along [address]. These buildings are of various ages and designs, and other than predominantly comprising terraces, there is not a cohesive appearance. The dwellings adjacent to the property were observed to be predominantly 2-storey with pitched roofs. Some of the dwellings have been altered, including alterations to their roofs with the erection of dormers.

At the rear the roofscape of the property is varied with a pitch roof above the main element together with a mono-pitch and a flat roof above the 2-storey rear additions. This roofscape is shared by No. 1 but No. 5 has a pitch roof with a flat roof above a large 2-storey rear addition. This terrace’s roofscape does not have a consistency of design. From the viewpoint within the adjacent open space and from the neighbouring roads examples of dwellings with rear dormers were seen.

The proposed development includes the erection of a dormer within the property’s main rear roofslope. The proposed dormer would be of a modest size and would be off-set from the ridge, eaves and sides of the roof. Accordingly, the size of the proposed development would not result in a visually or physically dominant addition to the property. A significant proportion of the main roof, together with the mono-pitch and flat roofs above the rear additions, would remain visible around the appeal scheme. The use of external materials to match the roof could be secured by condition to assist with the proposed dormer’s assimilation into the varied roofscape of the property and this short terrace.

Two rooflights would be erected with the front roofslope. However, because of their size, siting adjacent to the front projection and elevation above the road these rooflights would not be visually conspicuous features within the streetscene. They would not detract from the character and appearance of either the property’s front elevation or the terrace and their contribution to the streetscene. The rooflight in the rear roofslope would be substantially obscured by the chimney stack.

For the reasons given, the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its significance as a designated heritage asset would not be adversely harmed.

Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and, as such, it would not conflict with [name] LP26 and LP33 and LP Policy HC1. In addition to heritage considerations, these policies also refer to high quality design that respects and integrates with the area.

The Council has suggested several conditions in the event this appeal succeeds which have been assessed against the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. For the reasons given a condition is necessary to require the use of matching external materials and, to ensure proper planning the dormer should be constructed in accordance with the submitted drawings. For the reasons given, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed.