Appeal 3300877

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is a two-storey, end of terrace set amongst a row of similar style and aged properties along [site address] . The property has previously been extended to the side at two-storey, up to the common side boundary with No 79, and with a flat roof over. The proposal would project the original dwelling’s roof over the extension, converting its form from a hip end to a side gable. It would also include a ‘box-like’ dormer to the rear extending across the full, extended width of the property.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] 2010 (SPD) contains detailed guidance for roof alterations. It states that the preferred form of roof alteration to a terraced house is the extension of a hipped roof to form a gable with the addition of a rear dormer window but that dormers should generally be subordinate features with the retention of a clearly visible section of roof around the sides in order to visually contain them within the profile of the roof. To achieve this a rear dormer must be: set-in at least 500mm from a shared (party) boundary with an attached house; set-in at least 1000mm from the gable end; and set-back at least 1000mm from the roof eaves measured externally along the roof slope.

The SPD supports the principle of a hip-to-gable change to accommodate a subordinate rear dormer but only to the original roof of a terraced dwelling. Paragraph 6.72 reinforces this where it states that where a loft conversion is provided as part of a two-storey side extension, a single rear dormer across the whole width of the extended house may be unduly obtrusive.

I saw during my visit that a number of properties along [site address] have hip-to-gable changes. Most properties in the street do not have space to the side to accommodate a two-storey side extension so in this regard No [site address] is mostly unique. Nevertheless, as part of a wider terrace, the elongation of the property, including at roof level with a gabled end, would not be entirely out of keeping with the character of the area which has evolved. The change would merely reflect others in the street scene, and one that is broadly supported in principle by the SPD.

On the other hand, the size of the dormer would be in direct contradiction of the Council’s guidance. Although the side addition already exists, the full width of the dormer would be dependent upon the sideways extension of the original property. Due to the enlarged roofspace that would be available and utilised, I find that the dormer would appear as a large and obtrusive adjunct, and due to the uniquely extended width of the appeal property, much larger and bulkier than most others in the area. It would further conflict with the SPD by failing to be set in a reasonable distance from the gable end or up from the eaves and thereby able to achieve a satisfactory level of visual containment. The proposed dormer would be openly seen from the rear gardens of surrounding properties to be of a size and type the SPD explicitly advises against.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a case at [address] where planning permission was given on appeal ([name]/M5450/D/19/3225424) for what is allegedly the same type of development. However, I have no knowledge of the background or circumstances to this case and am unable to draw direct comparison with the current appeal proposal which, in any event, has been considered on its own merits.

For the reasons given, I find that, due to the size of the rear dormer, the proposal would be intrusive and detrimental to the visual qualities of the area. By failing to achieve a high standard of design that would respond positively to the character of the local area without harm, the proposal would conflict with Policy DM1 of the Council’s Development Management Policies 2013, Policy CS1 part B of the [name] 2012, and Policy D3 of The London Plan

Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.