Appeal 6000188

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description from the Council’s decision notice as it more accurately reflects the proposal before me but have omitted words ‘fully retrospective’ as this is not an act of development. Moreover, I saw that the work which had taken place on site did not wholly comply with the submitted drawings. For example, the fenestration to the dormer window does not align with the fenestration below. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the application drawings.

As part of the appeal submissions, the appellant included a set of revised drawings1 which they say were submitted to the Council on 13 February 2025 during the determination of the planning application. The drawings show the dormer window on the rear being extended in width so that it would be inset symmetrically from each side of the roof. The Council has confirmed that it did not consider these revised drawings and they have not been the subject of public consultation. The Council determined the application in accordance with the application drawings2 and for reasons which I set out in my decision, so shall I.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. 1 Drawing numbers: 1515-11B; 1515-13B and 1515-16B 2 [name] numbers: 1515-11A; 1515-13A and 1515-16A

The appeal site is one half of a semi-detached pair of houses located in a residential area, comprising predominantly of semi-detached pairs of dwellings under a hipped roof.

The hip to gable roof alteration which has taken place at the appeal property, but not at the neighbouring dwelling, unbalances the semi-detached pair of dwellings. Nonetheless, I saw a number of examples where the semi-detached pairs are no longer symmetrical together with examples of properties with a gable end roof.

In addition, my attention has been drawn to other properties which have the benefit of planning permission by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 to carry out similar works3 as permitted development. These post-date the previous Inspector’s site visit. I also saw that work was underway at No. 264 to provide a gable end roof with a flat roof dormer on the rear, in much the same way as proposed in this appeal.

Whilst not all the schemes with permission will necessarily be implemented, the evidence before me indicates that three of these have been implemented since the previous Inspector visited the appeal site. This is a material change in circumstance since the previous appeal which has resulted in a mix of roof types particularly in the vicinity of the appeal site and a number of unbalanced semi-detached pairs. As a result, the hip to gable roof alteration would not appear incongruous or out of place in this overall context.

The rear dormer would have windows aligned with the fenestration in the floor below. However, it is not aligned symmetrically on the roof slope and the scale and bulk of the dormer, extending across much of the width of the rear roof slope, is such that it dominates the roof. My findings align with those of the previous Inspector5 in this respect. Whilst dormer windows can be installed as permitted development, the dormer in this case is part of the overall proposals at the property so planning permission is required. Accordingly, the proposal falls to be determined in accordance with the development plan and I have not given any weight to this as a potential fallback position.

Even if I accepted the revised drawings which show the dormer window positioned centrally and symmetrically on the roof, they also indicate the dormer would be larger than the one on the drawings before me. Accordingly, the revised drawings would not address my concerns about the scale and bulk of the dormer window.

Therefore, I conclude that conflict would arise with Policy D3 of The London Plan, adopted March 2021 and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] adopted July 2014 which seek high quality development of a scale and design which is appropriate to the building and locality. 3 [name] 18, 21, 33 and [address] 4 [name]; 22/2827/CLP 5 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/D/22/3309522 [site address] Garage conversion to habitable room, erection of part single and part two storey side and rear extension and loft conversion with 1No rear dormer and 2No roof light at front together with roof alteration from hip end to gable end.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed.