Appeal 3358941

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for installation of front side dormer (summary) at [site address] , Wanstead, Redbridge, London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2988/24, and the plans submitted with it so far as they relate to the development hereby permitted.

The description of the proposed development is taken from the Council’s decision notice.

The description of the proposed development provided on the application form is for “a front/side dormer allowing staircase access to previously converted loft.”

The Council refers to a recent certificate of lawfulness application1 relating to the appeal property “for a loft conversion with a rear and side dormer which was unlawful” and goes on to state that “Despite the unlawful decision, the applicant has started works to the rear dormer...Given no planning permission has been received for the rear dormer, this will be subject to an enforcement case.”

The development the subject of this appeal has already taken place and is referred to below as “the development.”

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

The appeal property comprises a semi-detached dwelling with a front outrigger. It is set back from the road behind a parking area and has a garden to the rear. 1 Reference: 2119/24.

The appeal property is located in a residential area. Nearby dwellings vary in height, size and form. During my site visit, I observed there to be detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and blocks of flats along [address] in this location. I also noted that many dwellings have been altered and/or extended and that such changes include a variety of dormers and changes to original roof forms.

The development comprises a relatively small dormer facing the side and front of the dwelling. It is very simple in form and is fully tiled in matching tiles, such that it blends in well with the roof. The development is not visible as one approaches the dwelling from the north and due to the afore-mentioned characteristics, it does not draw the eye as one approaches from the south. Rather, it appears as a minor and rather neat addition amongst a varied roofscape.

Given this, the development appears neither awkward nor jarring. It presents as a simple and modest addition, carefully designed to blend in with the host dwelling. It does not draw attention to itself but appears in character with the area’s varied roofscape.

Taking the above into account, I find that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the area. The development is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021); or to Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Local Plan2, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is successful.