Appeal 6000037

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was made in the name of [name] and the agent is identified as [name]. Subsequently, [name] has confirmed that [name] is acting on behalf of them and the appeal proceeds on this basis.

The description of the development on the application form is: ‘Proposed single storey 5m rear extension; Proposed part 3m 1st floor extension. - [name]: Full width rear dormer and 2 velux windows to the front elevation.’ The appellant advises that the description was changed during the application process because the local planning authority (‘LPA’) requested some changes to be made because the proposed alterations to the roof were considered permitted development and an amendment was made to the first floor roof of the proposed extension (‘amended proposal’). The LPA determined the appeal on the basis of the amended proposal and my Decision reflects this.

During my visit, I observed that the roof alterations in the form of the rear dormer had been considerably advanced. Therefore, my assessment of the appeal includes this.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the appeal property and character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a two storey, semi-detached dwelling and associated amenity space. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and comprises two-storey, semi-detached dwellings, most of which have single storey rear extensions, and some which of have rear dormers. Appeal Decision: 6000037

In addition, the appellant has referred me to examples of other rear extensions in the area, which incorporate first floor elements. Therefore, and whilst the LPA has suggested that other larger ground floor and first floor extensions were allowed under different circumstances, these still inform the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal is for a part single and part two-storey rear extension. The single storey part of the proposed extension, would be about 5m deep, which exceeds the 3.5m depth for rear extensions to semi-detached houses, as set out in the Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016 (‘[name]). However, the [name] is guidance and does state that on widely spaced semi-detached or detached houses, there may be more scope for larger rear extensions.

In this case the adjoining property at [address], already incorporates a single storey extension and the proposed single storey extension would not significantly project beyond the rear of this existing extension. The dwelling on the other side ([address]) is separated by the width of an existing access. As such, because of this widely spaced arrangement relative to this property and the existing extension at [address], the single storey part of the proposed extension, despite its depth would not result in any significant sense of enclosure, loss of outlook and light for neighbouring properties.

Similarly, the two-storey part of the proposed extension, because of its separation from neighbouring properties and limited depth, the proposed two-storey element, would not result in any unacceptable impact on neighbours.

In the context of the surrounding area, the existing property which incorporates a dormer and retains a sizeable garden, the proposed extension would not be unduly bulky or prominent.

Nevertheless, the first floor part of the proposed extension incorporates a gabled roof form and although on the amended proposal this is shown projecting off the original roof slope of the appeal property, if this appeal succeeds it is more than likely that this would extend off the ‘as built’ roof form, which now incorporates a rear dormer. In particular, the gabled roof of the proposed first floor extension would be attached to and would obscure part of the dormer. This uncharacteristic arrangement reflects poor design and would harm the appearance of the appeal property and detracts from the character and appearance of the area, where in general first floor rear extensions remain separate from dormers.

I am aware that the appellant has amended the design of the roof of the first floor part of the extension based on the LPAs advice and an alternative design exists for this as shown on the original drawings submitted with the application. Even so, and for the reasons already given, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the amended proposal.

Accordingly, I find conflict with Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (September 2012) and Policy CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2012) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). Together, these policies require proposals to be of high quality that preserve or enhance local character. Appeal Decision: 6000037

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed