Appeal 3319482

The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for a loft conversion including a new dormer on the rear to add a new double bedroom and bathroom to the existing house at [site address] , Chingford, Waltham Forest [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 223165 dated 31 October 2022 subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2142-NT-x-PL-000 [name]; 2142-NT-x-PL-001 [name]; 2142-NT-x-PL-100 [name]; 2142-NT-x-PL-101 [name]; 2142-NT-x-PL-102 [name]; 2142-NT-x-PL-103 [name]; 2142-NT-x-PL-200 [name]; 2142-NT-x-PL-201 [name]; 2142-NT-x-PL-300 [name]; 2142-[name]-301 [name]; 2142-NT-x-PL-302 [name]; and 2142-NT-x-PL-303 [name].

The materials to be used in the external construction of the extension shall match those of the existing building.

The rooflights hereby permitted must not protrude more than 0.15 metres beyond the plane of the slope of the roof when measured from the perpendicular with the external surface of the roof.

The effect of the proposed roof extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the terrace which it sits within.

Numbers 2 to [address] of two storey period terraces with front gable projections, separated by parapet verges. The gable projections are paired together between the individual terraces. The opposing side to each terrace is connected to its neighbour by a recessed element and minor, subordinate, roof.

Many of the properties within the row have had their roofs altered in some manner to provide a second-floor. This accommodation has been achieved in a variety of manners. Alterations include gable build-ups and half-hipped sides, box dormers to the rear and roof lights. As the appellant notes, there is a similar arrangement to the appeal scheme at the adjoining [address].

The main gable projections and recessed elements that connect on one side, allows the row of properties to read as a line of semi-detached houses. It is only under detailed scrutiny that their terraced nature is revealed. This impression would not be altered by the roof extension when viewed from the front. The extended subordinate roof would rise towards the rear from the principal elevation. It would be barely noticeable in any views, other than those directly addressing the house. The increased height of the roof would be further ameliorated by the recessed position of the newly created ridge line.

The box dormer to the rear would sit within the profile of the existing, and extended, roof form. It would be similar to those at many neighbouring terraces. Due to the close-knit nature of surrounding buildings, it would not be visible in the broader streetscape, excepting for the most fleeting and deliberate views.

I conclude that the proposal would not result in material harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or that of the terrace. It therefore complies with policies CS13 and CS15 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and policies DM4, DM23 and DM29 of the Waltham Forest Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) insofar as these seek to ensure that development proposals relate well to the site and surroundings.

I have applied the standard time limit condition and one specifying the approved plans to create certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out using materials to match the existing dwelling. For the same reason, I have imposed the Council’s suggested condition to restrict the projection of the proposed roof lights above the roof plane.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. N ick Bowden