Appeal 6000204

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part one/two storey side/rear extension, reconfiguration of main roof to incorporate a half-hip loft conversion, rear dormer with Juliet balcony, and rooflights to front/side roof slope, front porch at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00122/FULL6, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I am aware that the appeal site (No 96) is subject to a planning enforcement notice that was upheld at appeal in July 2024, with variations1. The officer report also refers to a subsequent application2 refused by the Council in December 2024, and indicates that the current appeal scheme includes development which has previously been refused planning permission. Whilst the above planning history is a significant material consideration, I must also have regard to the submitted evidence for this appeal. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

I have therefore determined the current appeal scheme as being part-retrospective in nature, although I have deleted “part-retrospective” from my above decision as it is not a form of development. I must also determine the proposal based on the proposed plans rather than what has been built on site but irrespective of my decision, any matters regarding private land ownership or legal rights would remain subject to other separation legislation.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of No 96 and the surrounding area. 1 Appeal Refs: APP/G5180/C/22/3313302: APP/G5180/C/22/3313303 2 Council Ref: 24/03163/FULL6

No 96 comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling facing the highway of Kingsway and within a long plot. Its existing first floor flat roof, subject of the planning enforcement notice, is clearly visible from the road and from within No 96’s rear garden.

The current appeal scheme would extend above this flat roof form, but would be notably set down from the existing pitched front gable form that is one of many similar architectural features along Kingsway. The resultant roof profile to the side of this front gable would contain a part-side hip, which would also assist in reducing its bulk. A flat roof rear dormer is also proposed across the existing rear roof slope and that of the proposed side extension. This dormer would however be hipped to the side to follow the proposed side extension hip slope, and would also be set slightly below the proposed side extension ridge.

Whilst the resultant scheme would remain visible within the public realm, it would obscure views of the dormer’s flat roof from Kingsway. My attention has also been drawn to the nearby two storey side extension of No 84 Kingsway. During my site visit, I noted that the current proposal would have similar design cues to this example, along with other two storey side extensions on the same side of road between No 84 and No 96.

I also saw nearby large rear dormer examples with flat roof forms, which appear to have been constructed as part of two storey side extensions. Such examples include the adjoining property of No 94, which also has a two-storey rear extension.

Whilst many, if not all the abovementioned extensions have been constructed prior to the adoption of the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in 2023, they are nonetheless a characteristic of the immediate vicinity. In this context, I have found that the current proposed two storey side extension, first floor rear extension and rear dormer extension would reflect the rhythm, harmony and scale of the street frontage, as advised by the SPD.

The existing single storey rear extension and front porch (attached to the side extension) are proposed to be retained. The rear extension contains a flat roof form with protruding roof lantern, but its more secluded positioning avoids any harm from public views. Within the more secluded rear garden context, the overall proposed extensions would not be of excessive or incongruous scale and design.

The front porch is enclosed and has a pitched roof. It was described by the previous Inspector determining the enforcement appeal as substantial, giving additional emphasis to the overall scale of the extension that was determined as being unacceptable under that enforcement appeal.

However, as set out above, I have found that the current proposed side/rear extension and rear dormer to be of acceptable design and scale. I also saw No 98 to be surrounded by a variety of porch types in terms of size and form. Either as an individual structure, or in combination with the current overall proposed scheme, the porch would therefore not cause any visual harm.

For the above reasons, I have found that the current appeal scheme would not harm the character and appearance of No 96 and the surrounding area. It therefore complies with Policies 6 and 37 of the Council’s Local Plan (LP) (adopted 2019). Collectively, these policies require, amongst other things, alteration or extension of residential properties (including dormers) to respect those of the host dwelling, complement the scale, proportion, form and layout of adjacent buildings, and be of a size and design appropriate to the roofscape and sited away from prominent roof pitches. In turn, I have found no conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan.

The resultant development would have extensive rear elevation glazing, including a Juliet balcony within the dormer. Such features are however typically found in many suburban areas, and the rear windows do not directly face the gardens to each side. The gardens are also long and thus there would be no unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of surrounding neighbours in terms of privacy. A planning condition can be imposed to ensure that all upper floor side elevation windows and rooflights on the eastern elevation (facing No 98 Kingsway) are obscure-glazed to avoid loss of privacy.

Concern is also raised that the current appeal scheme would set a precedent. However, I have assessed this proposal based on its specific context and having regard to the submitted evidence. Allowing this appeal does not infer an acceptance of other development proposals near to No 98.

[name] 96 contains a two storey side extension and a first floor rear extension that are both subject to a planning enforcement notice, it is necessary to impose a condition (No 1) to secure a bespoke implementation timetable for the development hereby permitted. This condition is imposed to ensure that the development hereby permitted is implemented in a reasonable timeframe so as to make the two storey side extension and first floor rear extension acceptable in planning terms.

There is a strict timetable for compliance because permission is being granted part-retrospectively. Condition 1 will ensure that the development can be enforced against if the required implementation timetable is not submitted for approval within the period given, or if the details are not approved by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State on appeal, or if the details are approved but not implemented in accordance with an approved timetable.

Condition 2 is necessary to clarify the approved plans. Condition 3 is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Condition 4 is necessary in the interests of living conditions of neighbours and future occupiers.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed.

Unless within three months of the date of this decision an implementation timetable for the development hereby permitted is submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval, and unless the development hereby permitted is begun within six months of the local planning authority’s approval, the existing two storey side extension and first floor rear extension shall be removed and all materials resulting from the demolition shall be removed from the land. Upon commencement of the development hereby permitted, it shall be completed and thereafter retained in accordance with the implementation timetable as submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge or other decision has been finally determined.

The development hereby permitted relates to the following list of approved plans: location plan dated 16 August 2024; block plan – proposed/existing (dated 23 August 2024); proposed roof plan; proposed front elevation; proposed side elevation (E); proposed side elevation (W); proposed rear elevation; existing/proposed ground floor plan; existing/proposed first floor plan; proposed 2nd floor plan.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall be as stated in Section 10 of the application form dated 06 January 2025.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the windows and rooflights at the first floor and second floor eastern side elevation (facing No 98 Kingsway) have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed, the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.