Appeal 3364891

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the formation of a gable ended roof, rear dormer and three conservation rooflights at [site address] , Chingford, Waltham Forest, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 250300, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Drg Nos1416-519-LP and 1416/519-01 Revision 1.

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 rooflights hereby permitted shall be of a conservation style specification, flush with the profile of the roof and shall thereafter be retained as such.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the appeal property and wider [address] Conservation Area.

The appeal relates to a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling to the east side of [address], the northern part of which, including the appeal site, falls within the [address] Conservation Area (CA). The CA is an irregular shape and bisected by [address] which runs through its middle; a largely retail and commercial route with predominantly residential hinterlands to either side. [address] is identified within the Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan Issue 4 - January 2023 as part of the CA’s Character Area 05: [name] to the South-East of Railway, and comprises mainly semi-detached early 20th century paired villas, many displaying ornamental oriel windows, bay windows and gables with decorative pargeting and half-timbered motifs. No 28 is one half of a more simple mirrored pair with a dominant front gable over a two-storey bay, a smaller first-floor bay window and decorative porch detailing. The proposal would involve a hip-to-gable change with a rear dormer window extension.

The appeal property sits within an approximate [address] between its junctions with [address] to the north and [address] to the south. Along this stretch, on the east side of [address], only five properties fall within the boundary of the CA; Nos 22-28 (even) along with No 20 and its attached neighbour at [address], a pair that is set obliquely and prominently across the intersection of both roads. On the opposite side of [address], well over twenty properties between [address] leading up to and just beyond [address] are within the CA. During my visit I was struck by the significant number of dwellings within this part of the CA where hip to gable changes had occurred.

I observed that gable ended properties were numerous including many examples where only one of a pair had been changed. [name] accept the Council’s assertion that many changes would have occurred as permitted development before this part of the CA was designated, gabled ended roofs were clearly part of the evolved character and appearance of the street scene. Furthermore, very few of the changes, particularly amongst those set within the rows of properties to each side of [address], appeared obvious or incongruous. They were only really apparent to me through deliberate scrutiny rather than casual observation, principally due to the recessed position and straight alignment of the dwellings, the narrow spaces between them, and the street trees lining the pavements to both sides of the road. Those that had changed at roof level had mostly retained their distinctive ornamental features and remained positive contributors to the overall character and appearance of the CA.

The hip-to-gable change at No 28 would be neither unique nor out of keeping within the established pattern of development in the immediate area and this part of the CA. Given the dwelling’s position in the street scene, along with its close relationship with the unattached neighbouring dwelling at No 30, I have no reason to consider the new gable would be any more prominent along [address] than many of the others. The plans show the gable would be raised to match the party wall detailing between Nos 26 and 28. With appropriately matching materials and retention of the dwelling’s detailed features to the front elevation, the hip-to-gable change would not appear harmful within the street scene along [address].

The Council has not specifically criticised the rear dormer but objects in principle due to the necessary hip-to-gable change. The dormer would sit central and well-framed within the extended rear roof slope, set up from the eaves, down from the ridge and in from both sides. It would be reflective of several similar sized rear dormers on other surrounding properties, which I observed from the rear garden of the appeal property and would be neither overly bulky nor intrusive.

Overall, I am satisfied that the proposal would appear as a sympathetic alteration that would preserve the character and appearance of the appeal property and the [address] Conservation Area. The area’s significance as a designated heritage asset would therefore be unharmed. As such, there would be no conflict with Policies 53 or 72 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1, adopted in 2024, or with The London Plan 2021 Policy HC1 as far as between them they seek, amongst other things, to deliver high quality design that reinforces local character and which, as a minimum, preserves the character and appearance of the CA.

In addition to the standard time limit and plans conditions, a condition requiring the external materials used to match the existing is necessary in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. For the same reason I have included the Council’s suggested condition requiring the roof lights proposed to the front elevation to be conservation style and retained as such.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.