Appeal 3329933

The development the subject of this appeal has been undertaken and is more accurately described on the Council’s decision notice, namely a part replacement and part extension to the roof with loft conversion and rear dormer with front roof lights. I have determined the appeal on the basis of this description.

I saw a rear extension to the property at my site visit. That is not shown on the submitted plans or described in the description of development and so I make no comment on this.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a part replacement and part extension to the roof with loft conversion and rear dormer with front roof lights at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application ref P1113.23, dated 13 July 2023, subject to the development being carried out in accordance with plans 636.100.PL.01, 636.100.PL.02, 636.100.PL.03, 636.100.PL.04, 636.200.PL.01, 636.200.PL.02 & 636.1250.PL.01.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The development has seen the original hipped roof changed to a gable end. The appeal property lies in a road of two storey semi-detached houses and bungalows. I saw at my site visit there are differences in the design and form of properties, including within a pair of semi-detached houses, and these are www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate part of the original character of the road. Some pairs of houses have matching bays, some have matching projecting gables, whilst others have gables that do not match. Such differences are seen at the appeal property and its neighbour itself: there is a projecting front gable to No. 21 whilst No. 23 is flat fronted. Many properties along the road have been altered and extended.

This variation between individual houses and pairs of houses means that there is not a strong character of symmetry or balance to the street and area. Although it is a roof-level change, the alteration to the roof of No. 23 does not appear intrusive in the mixed character of the area, or harmful to the appearance of the host property. My view on this is reinforced by seeing where such similar changes have occurred in certain properties in [address] and the parallel [address], which are visible from public viewpoints or from the appeal site: those changes have not led to a deterioration in the varied character of the area.

I saw at the site visit there are other properties in the area that have rear dormer windows, and those vary in size and design. These are contained within the roof slope and do not intrude to the garden areas at the rear of the [address]/[address] properties, nor to the wider area. The dormer at the appeal property sits comfortably within the roof slope and is in scale with the property and its neighbour, with details and materials reflecting the property.

Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 seek to ensure that, amongst other matters, development is of good design and is informed by the features of a site and the local area. For the reasons given I consider the changes to the property satisfy these requirements.

I have also had regard to the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2011, which provides design guidance for extensions and is a material consideration in this appeal. The SPD states that conversion of a hipped roof to a gable end roof to one house on a pair of semi-detached dwellings can result in unbalancing the pair and hence such proposals will not be acceptable where hipped roofs are characteristic of the house or street. [name] have found that the character of the pair of houses and wider area is not dependent on hipped roofs, I find in this instance that the conversion to a gable end is acceptable and hence does not conflict with the SPD. The SPD states rear dormers should be contained well within the body of the roof by being set well back from the eaves, gables or party walls, and should be well below the ridge line of the roof. The dormer sits comfortably within these parameters.

On the main issue it is therefore concluded the development is not harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and hence satisfies the policies of the development plan, and the SPD, as set out above.

The appeal is therefore allowed. As the development has taken place there is a need only for a condition specifying the approved drawings, in the interests of precision.