Appeal 3286702

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘Erection of a rear/side roof extensions including raising ridge height and installation of rear Juliet balcony to facilitate loft conversion’ at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/02079/Hou, dated 12 May 2021, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The description of development was amended following submission of the application. I have utilised the amended description, which better reflects the development proposed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

The appeal site is a detached dwelling located close to the north-eastern end of [address], a predominantly residential street. [address] mainly comprises of detached and semi-detached two-storey dwellings. Despite variance in building types, a sense of place and uniformity arise from the regular spatial pattern and the building line. Buildings within [address] are generally of a modest scale and proportions, however buildings closest to junctions are somewhat larger. There is also a variance in roofscape, however, there is a predominance of some form of front facing gable and hipped roofs.

The appeal site is a different building type than most of the surrounding buildings. However, it does respect the vernacular spatial pattern, building line, modest proportions of [address], as well as feature a front-facing gable. The appeal proposal would introduce two side-facing flat-roofed gables to either roof slope and would raise the overall roof height.

The appeal proposal would retain the characteristic front-facing gable, spatial pattern and building line. Whilst the proposal would raise the roof height of the property, it would retain the existing eaves height, thereby avoiding the appearance of additional height and mass. In this respect, the proposal would integrate well with the somewhat varied roof pitches in the area and the more varied overall scale of properties closest to junctions.

The design of the dormers is utilitarian and massive. However, the additional mass arising from the dormers would not be prominent within the streetscene by virtue of their set back onto to the rear half of the roof depth. Their limited depth would also prevent any dominance over the host dwelling. Furthermore, the close proximity of neighbouring properties would screen the dormers from view within the streetscene and, in any case, there are similar dormers visible within the streetscene on the flank roofslopes of other properties.

For these reasons, the proposal would accord with policy D3 of the London Plan, adopted 2021 and policies CS8 and DM10 of the [name], adopted 2012, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These policies seek, amongst other things, development of a high-quality of design which has regard to local character.

The Appellant’s grounds of appeal outline that the appeal proposal seeks to provide additional accommodation within the dwelling for a live-in carer. The appeal proposal thereby seeks to meet the existing and future health, housing and welfare needs of an existing disabled occupant. This weighs further in favour of the proposal.

I have imposed the standard conditions requiring the development is carried out in a timely manner in accordance with the approved plans.

For these reasons, the proposal accords with the relevant policies of the development plan, in so far as they are consistent with the Framework, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

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 Site Plan PL/533/01, Existing and [name]/533/04, [name]/533/05 and [name]/533/06.