Appeal 3365608

The appeal is dismissed.

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 description on the application form differs to the decision notice. However, I am satisfied that the original description accurately describes the appeal development and is therefore reflected above.

The Council have raised no objections to the two-storey side and rear extension, and this is mirrored by the previous planning permissions which appear to have been implemented based on the site visit. I have no reason to disagree with their conclusions. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the dormer element on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal building is a pair of semi-detached dwellings fronting a residential street. Whilst there are differences in the materials used along the street as well as some being previously extended, the buildings are consistent in their form and largely plain roofscapes. Moreover, typically buildings in this location have a reducing window hierarchy from the ground floor upwards. All of which lend a pleasant originality to built form that resultantly contributes positively to the visual qualities of the area.

The proposed dormer would span the majority of the original roofscape along with it encroaching into the extended roof. This in combination with the already approved elements would be large and obvious, subsuming the resultant roof. Even being set in from the chimney and set above the eaves, it would not be seen as being proportionate to the dwelling in terms of its overall scale. Moreover, it would unbalance the dwelling and not follow the natural window hierarchy which would create a top-heavy impression to the rear. Resultantly, its presence would erode the largely unaltered qualities of the area in these regards. Whilst it would not be seen on the street scene, the extension would be from neighbouring gardens. It’s lack of public obviousness would not make it acceptable.

The Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions and Alterations 2010 (SPD) focusses on whether the proportions of the extension are appropriate. [name] appreciate that the SPD is of some age and older than the current iteration of the permitted development regime, it is still a material consideration as this proposal was for express planning permission. For the above reasons, the appeal scheme would not sit squarely with the SPD.

I appreciate that there are some examples of dormer windows in the vicinity, however I have not been provided any further details or their planning status. The appellant advises that they could build some form of the dormer window under the permitted development regime. [name] don’t doubt that they can build something, I am not convinced that there is enough evidence to substantiate this claim to suggest the proposal itself would fall under permitted development criteria. I therefore cannot give any more than limited weight to these considerations.

With the above in mind, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with Policy 53 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan (2024) and Policy D1 of the London Plan (2021). These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

I understand that there are some errors in the Council’s report surrounding the acceptability of the proposal. However, it is clear from the majority of the body of the report and the refusal reason that they object to the development. I have considered the appeal accordingly.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan and I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.