Appeal 3356458

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of a side and rear dormer window to facilitate a loft conversion at [site address] , London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P2024/2244/FUL and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

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

The dormer window frames shall match those used in the existing dwelling in terms of their form, profile, colour and finish.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: LMR (100) 010 [name]; LMR (100) 011 [name]; LMR (100) 012 [name]; LMR (300)[address] Elevation; LMR (300) 011 [name]; LMR (300) 012 [name] and LMR (300) 013 [name].

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street scene and the Tufnell Park Conservation Area. Appeal Planning Officer APP/V5570/D/24/3356458

The appeal site is located within the Tufnell Park Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

The CA, including [address] which sits within it, is predominantly residential and consists of spacious semi-detached villa style properties as well as terraces of three or four storeys of broadly the same period. The CA is characterised by dwellings of high architectural quality which have balanced frontages, are generally set back from the street and evenly spaced. These elements give the CA a sense of symmetry, rhythm and cohesiveness which adds to its character, appearance and significance.

The appeal dwelling is a three storey plus basement end of terrace townhouse with front and rear garden. The terrace of which the appeal dwelling forms part, is made up of a set of four similar townhouses with a common pitched roof with a hip at either end. On either side of this terrace are two pairs of semi-detached three storey villas of similar design, scale and period. One of these semi-detached dwellings is No 82 which sits next to the appeal dwelling and has an existing side roof dormer. These dwellings are characteristic of the properties in the CA and make a positive contribution to its significance.

From visiting the site, it is apparent that there is variety in the roof profiles and roof treatments of dwellings in different parts of the CA. The roofscape on [address] is of simple form without significant embellishment, and the largely unbroken front roof slope offsets the more decorative front elevations and makes a positive contribution to the appearance of the CA.

The rear roof slope of the appeal dwelling and neighbouring properties is visible from [address]. This roof slope is generally unaltered although there are some rear dormers, including a sizeable rear dormer at the property closest to [address] which is prominent and visible from street level. The proposed rear dormer would also be visible from [address] but would not be unduly prominent given its relatively modest scale and complementary design to the existing dwelling and other dormers nearby. Therefore, the proposed rear dormer would be compatible with the street scene and would not harm the character and appearance of the CA.

The hipped side roof slope of the appeal dwelling is only clearly visible from a relatively narrow viewing corridor from the far footway of [address]. The long view of this roof slope is blocked by No 82 and the front and side roof slopes are not clearly visible from the near footway due to the height of the dwellings. The proposed side dormer would only be visible from a very limited area, which is also the case for No 82’s dormer, and would be seen in the context of this other dormer. In this context, it would not appear out of place in the street scene nor be particularly noticeable and so would not disrupt the features that contribute to the character, appearance and significance of the CA.

Further, the proposed side dormer would be of a relatively modest scale and although larger than that of No 82 and set slightly further forward, it would be clearly subordinate in size to the roof of the appeal dwelling. The simple design and modest size would be complementary to the existing roofscape and similar to other Appeal Planning Officer APP/V5570/D/24/3356458 dormers in the area and so the dormer would not introduce a dominant or discordant feature in the street scene.

The Tufnell Park (CA11) Conservation Area Design Guidelines (2002) (CADG) state that new or enlarged dormers will not be permitted on front or side roof slopes on properties with exposed pitched roofs, as these roof details form an important part of the visual and architectural character of buildings and the CA. This guidance seeks to avoid alterations that are not in keeping with the existing buildings, however for the reasons set out above, this would not be the case here. Therefore, diverting from the guidance in this case is acceptable.

For these reasons, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the street scene and the CA. Consequently, it would comply with Policies PLAN1, DH1 and DH2 of the Strategic and Development Management Policies (2023) and Policies D3, D4 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021 which seek to ensure that developments preserve and enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas and respond to the existing site context.

The proposed development would also comply with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework as well as the [name] (2017) and the Tufnell Park Conservation Area Design Guidelines (2002) insofar as they promote high quality design and developments that complement their respective contexts.

Conditions for commencement and requiring the development to accord with the approved plans are necessary in the interests of expediency and certainty. A condition requiring the use of window frames to match those in the existing dwelling is also necessary to ensure an appropriate appearance for the development taking in account the character and appearance of the CA.

I note that the Council requested that a condition requiring that all external surfaces of the development match those used in the existing dwelling. However, given that the dormers are to be finished in lead, it is not appropriate in this case to require that they be finished in tiling to match the existing roof.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and agree with the reasoning and recommendation. On that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions listed above.