Appeal 3342507

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion involving installation of rear and front dormer windows and front roof light at [site address] , Rainham, Havering [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PO209.24, 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: TRD-233410-A1/02; TRD-233410- A2/02; and aerial photo site location plan.

The face and cheeks of the front and rear dormer windows hereby permitted and the roof of the front dormer window hereby permitted shall be finished in tiles to match the appearance of the roof of the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out in the banner heading above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and appeal form that the proposal also includes a front roof window. The decision in paragraph 1 above reflects this approach.

A draft National Planning Policy Framework was published in July 2024. The proposed changes would not materially affect the main issues in this case, so the parties were not invited to make further comments. As the feedback from the recent consultation on the draft document is currently being analysed, it carries very little weight.

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

The appeal site comprises a two-storey end-terraced dwelling in a residential area. The houses in the terrace have pitched, tiled roofs, and large front projecting gables. There have been limited alterations to the roofs of properties along this part of [address], but rear roof extensions on some similar houses nearby result in a more varied wider roofscape.

The proposed small, pitched roof front dormer would be sited on the main roof alongside the gable. Its size would accord with the guidance in the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011 (SPD).

There are no similar front roof extensions in the locality. However, due to its modest size, traditional design and position set back from the projecting gable which would obscure it in some views of the terrace, the proposed front dormer would not be a discordant or disruptive addition to the roofscape. Further, a condition requiring tiled finishing materials to match the existing roof would ensure that it would not harmfully contrast with the original dwelling roof.

The proposed rear dormer would be a relatively large and bulky addition to the property, close to the roof ridge and set in only a short distance from the eaves. It would be contrary to the SPD guidelines which require rear dormers to be contained well within the body of the roof.

Nevertheless, properties in [address] already have similar rear dormers, two of which are visible from the rear garden at the appeal site. Whilst these may not have needed planning permission, the similar design of the proposed rear roof extension would be consistent with the existing wider roofscape character. Therefore, the proposed rear dormer would not be unduly intrusive or cause harm to the appearance of the rear garden scene.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 where they require proposals to respect the character of the local area.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interest of certainty. To protect the character and appearance of the area, I have also imposed a condition requiring the dormer walls and front dormer roof to be finished in tiles to match the existing house.

For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR