Appeal 3353207

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the conversion of loft space involving alterations to existing roofline; a dormer extension at the rear; rooflights to front roofslope and alterations to fenestrations at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. DM2024/00551, dated 19 April 2024, and the plans submitted with it, 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: OS based Location Plan; Existing Block Plan; Proposed Block Plan; Composite Plan of [name]; Roof Plan; [name]; [name]; [name]; [name]; Plan of Proposed Section A-A; Composite Plan of [name], Loft, Roof, [name], [name]; Composite Plan of [name], [name], Proposed Section A-A;

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene of [address].

The appeal dwelling is the first of a row of ten bungalows on the northeast side of [address] in the approach from the junction with [address]. With its comparatively small size and absence of a defined front curtilage No. 2 is dwarfed by the large roof mass of the adjoining pair of semi-detached bungalows at Nos. 4 and 6. Taking this into account together with the visual effect of the recessive form of the fully hipped roof and the lack of a front entrance, I consider that the building lacks any ‘presence’ in the street scene and is accordingly to some extent perceived negatively.

The appeal scheme would change the roof profile from hip to gable and I consider that with this additional built form the appeal scheme would considerably improve the building’s appearance from the road and its presence within it, thereby reducing the dominance of Nos. 4 & 6.

This complete change in roof shape and volume is a good example of where requiring an extension to be subordinate to the original building as advocated in the Council’s SPD4 ‘Design of [name] is inappropriate. And in this context, I agree with the appellant’s view that this point is demonstrated by comparing the difference of approach and outcomes between No. [address] on the one hand and Nos. 44 & 46 on the other.

The rear of the appeal dwelling is not part of the public realm and proposes a full-size box dormer. Again, in itself this might well be inappropriate under SPD4. However, when combined with the proposed gabled roof and in an existing situation whereby the existing tall flat roof rear extension is read with the dual pitched gable roof to the rear conservatory as being particularly incongruous, I agree with the appellant’s view that ‘the proposed development would create a more cohesive and streamlined appearance, enhancing the overall aesthetic of the building’.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed alterations and additions would improve the character and appearance of the property and the street scene including being of a scale more in keeping with that of Nos. 4 & 6 and the remainder of this part of [address]. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 or with Section 12: ‘[name] and [name] of the National Planning Policy Framework December 2023.

I shall therefore allow the appeal. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is needed for the avoidance of doubt and is in the interests of proper planning. A condition requiring matching external materials is required to maintain visual amenity.