Appeal 6000466

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for loft conversion with rear dormer, rear single storey extension and a side first floor extension at [site address] , Romford, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0552.25, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan; Block Plan BP- [postcode] -001 Rev-B; Proposed Floor Plan PP- [postcode] -001 Rev-C; and [name] [postcode] -001 Rev-C

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes tile hanging to the face and cheeks of the rear dormer.

The roof area of the ground floor rear extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows shall be inserted in the south side elevation of the rear single storey extension hereby permitted.

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 main issues are; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area; and, • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook.

[site address] is a double fronted two-storey detached dwelling, centrally situated within a mature residential streetscene made up of individually designed detached and semi-detached houses. Surrounding properties, including those within [address] to the rear of the appeal site, exhibit a broad range of roof forms, with several incorporating large flat roofed rear dormer window additions.

The dwelling itself displays a traditional aesthetic, with an attractively harmonious principal elevation and pronounced chimney stacks and southern flank parapet gable. Its rear elevation is comparatively unassuming, whilst also of a lesser width than the front due to the set back of the rear part of its northern gable. Although taller than immediately adjacent houses, the building sits comfortably within its setting owing to the notably varied styles and scales of development in the locality.

The proposed dormer is designed with a triple pitched roof set appreciably beneath the main ridgeline, with three corresponding windows to those below. Although it would span most of the width of the existing roof slope and would have a limited set back from the eaves, its pitched roof form and balanced window arrangement would combine to alleviate its visual breadth. Its massing would also be moderated through its intersection with the retained parapet gable wall and by the set back of the opposing rearward gable wall from the front. These features, together with the use of matching materials, would result in an enlargement that is appropriately respectful of the host dwelling in its design and scale. Consequently, it would be consistent with the overall thrust of the Council’s guidance on dormer windows as contained within its [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011 (the SPD).

Due to its aforementioned siting and sympathetic pitched roof form, the dormer would be of only limited visibility from [address] and would not appear intrusive within the street’s mixed character. Its full extent would be visible from a section of [address] to the rear, however from this position it would be read in conjunction with the comparatively bulky presence of dormer extensions on neighbouring properties to either side. Accordingly, the proposal would integrate with its surroundings and complement the variety of roofscapes that characterise its context.

From the evidence before me, it is apparent that the parties raise no objection to the single storey rear extension or the first floor side extension, whether in relation to their design or their effect on the character and appearance of the streetscene. I agree that the first floor addition would appear subservient to the original dwelling and would be acceptable in design terms, whilst the single storey rear extension would not be visible from the street and would preserve the character of the area.

I acknowledge that the proposals would, in combination, result in a notable increase in the floorspace of the appeal property. Even so, the enlarged dwelling, which would still be suitable for single family occupation, would not appear overly dominant in its surroundings, nor would it conflict with the varied character of the streetscene.

On this basis, the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. In its entirety the appeal scheme would therefore satisfy the requirements of Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031. Taken together, amongst other things, these policies require that development is of a high quality design which respects and complements the established scale and massing of the building and the distinctive character of the local area.

The plans show that the proposed single storey extension would retain the existing spacing to the mutual boundary with the adjacent property, [address] (No 19). This neighbouring semi-detached house, which is set at a slightly lower ground level, is in turn positioned beyond a wider gap from this side boundary.

The Council assessed the proposal to comply with the SPD’s general guidance on the depth and siting of ground floor rear enlargements, yet pointed to the appeal dwelling’s deeper existing rear building line as exacerbating the extension’s length and so resultant impact upon No 19. [name] note the different building lines of the respective rear elevations, the proposed extension’s massing along this joint boundary would be limited owing to its modest height as arising from the flat roof design.

These considerations, when taken together with the degree of spacing between the two houses, are such that notwithstanding the appeal site’s higher level, the proposal’s resultant size and scale would not cause unacceptable harm to No 19’s existing outlook. It would not appear unduly overbearing or prominent above the common boundary fence, meaning the occupiers of this neighbouring property would continue to enjoy a reasonable level of outlook from their rear windows and garden.

Neighbours have raised concerns over an increase in overlooking arising from windows within the proposed dormer. However, a degree of mutual overlooking is an established characteristic of the locality, and the appeal site’s garden is of a sufficient depth to limit any material changes in this respect. Thus, I find that the new windows, whilst at a higher level than those existing, would not give rise to unacceptable impacts in relation to overlooking.

Accordingly, the proposed rear extension would have an acceptable effect upon the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook. In its entirety the appeal scheme would therefore comply the requirements of Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 which, amongst other things, requires that development protects the amenity of existing residents including by avoiding the unacceptable loss of outlook. Furthermore, the rear extension would be consistent with the SPD, which guides that rear extensions should be designed to maintain a reasonable outlook from neighbouring properties.

The appeal site is not located within an area of identified flood risk, and I have no evidence before me to indicate that the rear extension would give rise to harmful impacts in these terms. I did not observe that any trees or hedges would need to be removed to facilitate this extension, however in any event, the site is not subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

In addition to the standard limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. In the interests of securing high quality design, it is necessary for materials to match those used on the existing house, however due to the plans’ ambiguity, I have worded the materials condition to specify a matching tile hung finish for the dormer cheeks and face. Given its width and potential to be accessed from first floor windows, I have also imposed a restriction on the use of the rear extension’s roof as a balcony or similar amenity area, in order to safeguard neighbouring living

The Council have suggested additional conditions with respect to obscure glazing of side windows and doors. I agree that it is necessary to restrict the insertion of windows within the rear extension’s flank wall, which could offer unacceptable views over the shared boundary fence towards No. 19’s rear elevation and patio. However, given the positioning of the proposed side door and windows facing the side elevations of Nos 15 and 19, it is not reasonable or necessary to require these to be obscure glazed or to prevent their opening.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions set out.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions set out.