Appeal 3297532

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of loft into habitable accommodation with rear dormer at [address], [address], Hook, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 22/00683/HOU, dated 24 March 2022, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

In the interests of accuracy, I have utilised the Council’s description of the proposal used in its decision notice in preference to that used in the original application form.

The appeal property is located within the [address] Conservation Area (CA).

The main issues are the effects of the proposals on the host property and whether they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

The appeal property is a terraced dwelling, and the appellant’s main proposal involves the erection of a full width dormer extension in the rear roof. The Council acknowledges the presence of other similar structures in this part of the CA but contends that most were built using permitted development rights, which no longer apply following the CA’s designation1.

Moreover, the Council says that the ‘roofscape of the row of terraced properties of which the host dwelling is part of ...maintains its original character and neat appearance’, and that the original roofscape of this terrace is still ‘readable’ despite the insertion of some other dormers similar to that proposed.

I share the Council’s view that, taken individually, dormer structures of the type proposed are not always aesthetically pleasing features, and it is unlikely that any of the many seen on my visit would win design prizes. Nevertheless, from the publicly accessible vantage points near the site2, it became plainly apparent to me that rear dormer structures, given their extent and numbers, are wholly characteristic of this part of the CA’s roofscape.

Looked at individually, without regard to the wider context, the Council’s concerns regarding the effect on the host property have a degree of merit, and the proposal conflicts, in part, with the Council’s SPD guidelines3 on proposals of this type.

But on the other hand I do not consider that the wider spatial context can be simply disregarded or ignored in any reasonable assessment. In what I regard as the applicable wider context, which includes both sides of Bushy Park Road and parts of [address], rear roofs are littered with box-like dormers. In view of this, the proposed dormer would be barely distinguishable or appreciable either in respect of its effect on the host property or the wider CA. The proposal, if built, would have a neutral effect on its surroundings, and consequently the CA’s character would be unaffected and preserved.

The Council, seemingly, would not have an objection to the proposed rooflights, provided ‘conservation’ types were installed. However, I saw that standard rooflights were common in this part of the CA, and to my mind, they did not jar. Another set of small rooflights would thus make no appreciable difference to the street scene.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the host property or the character of the CA. Accordingly, I find the proposals accord with those provisions of LP policies policies LP1 and LP3 in that their design demonstrates a thorough understanding of the site, relates well to its existing context, and preserves the character of a heritage asset.

In the interests of visual amenity, I shall impose the Council’s suggested condition in respect of external materials, with a slight amendment.

It is also necessary, in the interests of certainty that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 1 The appellant notes however that planning permission was granted in April 2021 for a rear dormer at [address], within a stone’s throw of his property. 2 From the public open space referred to in the Council’s officer report on the application and from the public footpaths running alongside and over the nearby railway lines. 3 Supplementary Planning Document on [name] and Alterations 2

For the reason already provided, the Council’s condition in respect of the proposed rooflights is not imposed.

I have taken account of all other matters raised in the representations, but none outweighs those considerations which led me to my conclusions.