Appeal 6000057

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part single, part two storey side/rear extension, ground floor front extension and loft conversion to include rear dormer, the conversion of roof from hip-to-gable end and front roof lights at [site address] , Havering, Hornchurch [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P0888.24 and subject to the following conditions.

This permission relates to the following approved plans and drawings: Location Plan: [name]. D11; Existing Ground Floor Plan: [name]. D01 Rev1; Existing First Floor Plan: [name]. D02 Rev1; Existing Loft Plan: [name]. D03 Rev1; Existing Roof Plan: [name]. D04 Rev1 and [name]: [name]. D05 Rev1.

Notwithstanding the approved plans, within three months of the date of this permission the side and front elevations of the rear dormer hereby permitted shall be finished in hanging tiles to match the main roof of the host property.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order), no window or other opening shall be installed in the flank walls of the extensions hereby permitted.

The flat roofs of the development hereby permitted shall at no time be converted to or be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity or sitting out area.

For the purposes of my Decision, I have taken the description of the proposed development from the Council’s decision as this more accurately describes the proposal. However, because ‘retrospective application’ is not an act of development, I have removed this term from my formal Decision.

The development on the site broadly reflects the submitted drawings. Nonetheless, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted drawings.

The appellant advises that the proposal includes the provision of new bi-fold doors to the rear elevation of a ground floor extension. Based on the Council’s decision, bi-fold doors are not shown on the drawings which were considered by it when determining the planning application that this appeal relates to. I have determined the appeal on the same basis.

Although the proposed scheme includes a number of extensions and alterations, the Council’s reason for refusal specifically refers to the hip to gable conversion and rear dormer. I have also taken account of the other extensions and alterations proposed at the appeal property, which due to their relative siting, scale and appearance, are acceptable additions to the appeal property.

Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the proposed hip to gable conversion and rear dormer on the character and appearance of the appeal property and area.

The surrounding area is characterised by two-storey, semi-detached dwellings arranged in pairs. Some of these pairs of dwellings are similar in design and therefore incorporate a degree of symmetry. Other examples, including some near the appeal property, have been designed to be different from one another or have been subject to alterations and extensions to the sides. Thereby, resulting in a lack of symmetry and balance between individual pairs of semi-detached dwellings. This arrangement supports a varied street scene.

In this case, the adjoining semi-detached dwelling has retained its original hipped roof form. The proposed scheme includes a two-storey side and rear extension, which extends off the hip to gable conversion and features a hipped roof. This, together with the hip to gable conversion reflect the hipped roof form of the adjoining property. Also, due to its recessed design and lower roof height, the side element of the side and rear extension mitigates the overall scale of the hip to gable conversion. Because of this and the considerable variation between the pairs of dwellings within the street scene, the hip-to gable conversion is acceptable.

The proposed rear dormer despite being set in from the sides and eaves of the rear roof, would be a sizeable addition to this roof. Nevertheless, the hipped roof of the two-storey rear extension, in part, obscures and mitigates the scale of the rear dormer.

Drawings submitted as part of the application show that the rear dormer would be rendered to match the rear elevation of the appeal property. Whilst there may be other dormers in the area with a rendered finish, in this case because of its rendered finish and scale, the rear dormer would appear as an uncharacteristic additional storey on the appeal property.

Nonetheless, the appellant has confirmed that the rear dormer would be finished in matching tiles. This would assist the rear dormer to assimilate with the main roof of the appeal property and mitigate its scale. Accordingly, I do not support the appellant’s alternative request to retain a rendered finish on the rear dormer. Therefore, and subject to being finished in tiling, the proposed rear dormer would be acceptable.

I have had regard to the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, which includes advice on the design of extensions, including dormers. However, for the reasons set out above, this does not alter my findings.

Consequently, the proposed hip to gable conversion and rear dormer would not detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property or area and accord with policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan. Amongst other things, these policies say that development proposals should be based on an understanding of local characteristics and that proposals should preserve or enhance local character and respect the appearance, scale, mass, height and pattern of surrounding buildings, spaces and streets.

Because the development has already commenced it is not necessary to specify the standard implementation condition. However, I have specified a condition relating to the approved plans and drawings in the interests of certainty.

Based on the reasons already given, I have specified a condition requiring that the rear dormer be finished in tiles to match the main roof of the appeal property.

To safeguard the amenity of adjoining occupiers from overlooking, a condition removing permitted development rights for window or other openings in the flank walls of the approved extensions is justified and reasonable. For the same reason, a condition restricting the use of any flat roof areas as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity or sitting out area is reasonable and necessary.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.