Appeal 3291069

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for raising main ridge line, form rear dormer and two rooflights at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref: HGY/2021/2854, dated 16 September 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: 1416/297-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 host dwelling.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The appeal site is a terraced two-storey property on [site address] . The dwellings along this section of [site address] possess a uniformity in their form and relationship to the highway. The ridgelines of these dwellings largely step down in pairs to the south, awarding the street scene an attractive rhythm. Although there is a consistency in the ridgelines of some of these pairs of dwellings, there is some variation in a number of these, with one of the pair being slightly higher than the other.

The appeal property is reflective of the other dwellings along this section of [site address] with respect to its form and relationship to the highway. The ridgeline of the host dwelling is marginally lower than the adjoining No 50 [site address] (No 50) with which it forms a pair. There is a noticeable step down in ridge height from the appeal building to the adjoining No 46 [site address] (No 46). The appeal property is separated from the adjoining dwellings by an upstand protruding beyond the roof and ridge lines.

The proposal would increase the ridgeline of the host dwelling by approximately 0.19 metres which would result in a slight projection above that of No 50. Given the limited projection above No. 50, the proposal would appear consistent with other such variations between ridgelines observed within the street scene. Furthermore, the proposal would retain the stepping down of the pair to No. 46, preserving this important characteristic of the street scene.

The increase in ridge height would be facilitated through a slight offset in the existing position of the ridgeline to the rear of the property. The upstands between dwellings provide a visual break and mask any subtle variations between roof forms. Given the minor nature of this offset, combined with the upstands flanking the appeal property, the alteration in ridge position would not appear noticeable from the street scene. As such, the proposal would preserve the existing character of the street scene.

The proposed rear dormer is reflective in scale and character of other existing rear dormers along the terrace. The Council consider the proposed rear dormer to be acceptable with regards to its impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree.

For the above reasons, the development would preserve the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy SP11 of Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013 – 2026 (2017), Policy D6 of The London Plan The Spatial Development Strategy for [name] 2021, and Policies DM1 and DM12 of the Development Management Development Plan Document (2017) which together require development to be of high quality design and to respect the character of the local area.

I note that the occupiers of No. 50 raised the effect of the proposal on their living conditions, with particular regard to privacy. The Council has assessed this matter, concluding that the proposal would not result in any significant increase in overlooking. Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree with the Council in this regard.

The standard time limit condition and condition specifying the approved plan are necessary for the reason of certainty. In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area, a condition relating to matching materials is also necessary.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.