Appeal 6000507

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for addition of dormer window to side elevation and the addition of 16 solar panels to existing roof at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01587/FULL6, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos A1/2512/p/1 and A1/2512/p/2.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The side elevation dormer window hereby permitted shall not be used or occupied until its window has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened.

In my above decision, I refer to the application form description rather than that in the decision notice, as this is what the appellant has applied for, and it accurately describes the l proposal. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Having regard to the Council’s officer report and decision notice, the main issue is the effect of the proposed dormer window on the character and appearance of the host dwelling (No 134) and the surrounding area.

No 134 comprises a two-storey detached dwelling facing [site address] Road. Along with surrounding dwellings, it is within [site address] Area of Special Residential Character (PWASRC), as designated on the [name] of the Council’s Local Plan (LP) (adopted 2019). The original plans for [site address] date from the late 1920s and early 1930s, designed following the garden suburb principle. PWASRC is subject to an Article 4 Direction that removes permitted development rights for roof extensions and alterations.

[site address] Road is a straight and tree-lined street, mainly containing semi-detached dwellings with traditional long and liner plot layouts. There are many common architectural designs, materials and roof forms, regimented front building lines, and generally good spacings between dwellings at upper floor level. These characteristics provide a pleasant verdant suburban character in the vicinity of No 134, despite the presence of various roof extensions and dormers.

No 134 is of traditional design with a well-preserved mock-Tudor front fenestration. It appears to have been extended to the side at first floor level, although this is towards the rear and well set away from the side boundary. No 134 and its surrounds therefore contribute positively to the special and distinctive qualities of the PWASRC.

The proposed side dormer would project noticeably further beyond the existing side extension. However, it would be of modest proportions, sitting comfortably below and slightly behind the existing front gable, and would be noticeably set in from the side garage elevation below it. The distinctive catslide roof form in which it would sit within would therefore still be appreciated. Its eaves would tie in with the existing, and the render and timber panelling fenestration would reflect that of No 134.

It cannot be said that the proposed dormer would enhance and strengthen the PWASRC’s special and distinctive qualities. However, for the above reasons the development would avoid an overbearing or incongruous impact upon No 134 and nearby properties along [site address] Road. It would thus respect the special and distinctive qualities of this area.

I therefore conclude that the proposal complies with Policies, 6, 37 and 44 of the LP. Collectively, these policies require, amongst other things, enlargement of residential properties to be of a high standard of design and layout, respect the host dwelling and be compatible with development in the surrounding area, including areas designated as Areas of Special Residential Character.

The reason for refusal also cites conflict with Policy D4 of the London Plan. This policy refers to, amongst other things, masterplans and design codes based on the requirement set out in [name] of London Plan Policy D3. This part of Policy D3 however refers to “higher density developments”. Therefore, Policy D4 is not relevant to the appeal scheme comprising a householder extension.

A condition specifying a time limit for the development (No 1) is necessary in the interests of planning certainty. Condition 2 is necessary to clarify the approved plan details. Condition 3 is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of No 134 and the surrounding area in the PWASRC. Condition 4 is necessary in the interests of residential living conditions.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed.