Appeal 3312476

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the Council’s description of development in the banner heading as it more fully describes the development proposed.

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

The appeal property is a two-storey, end-of terrace dwelling located within a predominantly residential area.

The proposed development would involve a hip to gable extension which the Council oppose. I acknowledge that the end-of terrace dwelling opposite the appeal site and Nos 46 and [address] to the north west of the site display hipped roof forms,. However, there are also other examples along [address] of gabled ends to the rows of terraces. In particular, I note that [address] which is the opposing end of the host terrace has a gable end and there are other examples at Nos 11 and [address].

I also note that several of the dwellings along [address] close to the appeal site have prominent side gables. I am therefore not convinced that hipped roofs are a strong defining feature of the surrounding area. Moreover, I consider that the proposed rendered finish would match the appearance of the host property and would be acceptable in appearance. I therefore find that the hip to gable extension would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or surrounding area.

The proposed dormer to the main roof would be large, with no significant set back from either the ridge or the eaves of the host dwelling. It would extend across much of the width of the roof with only a slight set-in from the side elevation. Whilst the part of the dormer above the outrigger would be slightly lower than the dormer on the main roof, it would extend across almost the full depth of the outrigger and would also tower above its existing ridge line. The proposed dormer extensions would not appear subservient and would dominate the entire roof of the dwelling. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would be dominant and incongruous in appearance and harmful to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

The side elevation of the existing dwelling is clearly visible from [address]. Views of the proposed roof dormers would be obtainable from the western side of [address] due to the gap between the rear elevation of [address] and the flank elevation of the existing dwelling. Whilst at certain times of the year views would be more filtered when adjacent trees are in full foliage, the proposed dormer extensions would still be clearly visible. Views would also be obtainable from the access to the side and rear which leads three further dwellings. In my view, the dormers would appear as highly dominant additions to the existing dwelling which due to their incongruous design and appearance would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appellant has highlighted other examples in the local area of ‘L’ shaped dormer extensions. Of these the most relevant is at [address] although the Council state that there are no planning records relating to this extension. Furthermore, in my view the rear elevation of No 4 is not as visible in the street scene as the appeal proposal. The other examples are further away and as such are less relevant as they do not form part of the immediate context of the appeal site.

I also acknowledge the various examples of certificates of lawfulness that have been issued for rear dormers and to the appeal decisions in Croydon and other [name]. I do not dispute that in some cases similar extensions can be built under permitted development rights and that there are examples of rear dormers and ‘L’ shaped dormers having been allowed at appeal. However, I have determined the appeal on the individual merits of the case, having regard to the character and appearance of the host property, the surrounding area and the prominence of the proposed roof extensions.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. Thus, it would be contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) which collectively seek to ensure a high quality built environment which respects and enhances local character and distinctiveness.

Accordingly, for the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.