Appeal 6000775

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and local area.

The appeal site includes a two-storey end-terrace dwelling with an existing two-storey side extension. [address] is generally comprised of a mix of single and two-storey semi-detached properties although the appeal property is part of a terrace. The proposal includes hip-to-gable and rear dormer roof extensions as well as roof lights to the front. The Council does not take issue with the latter, and I see no reason to disagree. As such, I will focus my assessment on the roof extensions.

My attention is drawn to the Council’s ‘[name] and Alterations’ Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD). This advises that dormers should be contained well within the body of the roof by being set well back from the eaves and by setting the sides well in from any gables or party walls. It goes on to advise that dormers must never extend above the ridge line of the roof and should be located well below it.

The proposed hip-to-gable extension would add further mass to the roof of the property which was previously extended but maintained a set down from the host ridge. This would be compounded by the proposed dormer, which would not be set down from the ridge and would extend up to the edge of the extended side elevation. While there would be small gaps from the adjoining roof of No 47 and the host eaves, overall, the hip-to-gable and dormer extensions would add substantial bulk to the host dwelling making it appear top heavy and overwhelming the existing roof. Furthermore, due to the adjacent properties being single storey, the side and part of the rear elevation of the host dwelling are clearly visible from the public domain which would make the proposal appear prominent and imposing in the street scene.

I observed on the site visit that some properties in the street included hip-to-gable roofs and rear dormers. However, I understand that these may have been carried out using permitted development rights and I have no examples before me of planning permission being granted in the area. In any event, the predominant roof form remains hipped, and the proposed dormer would appear much wider than the adjacent examples on the neighbouring roofs of the host terrace. Although materials may match the host building, this does not convince me the proposal is acceptable based on its own merits.

Taken together, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and local area. This would conflict with policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 (adopted November 2021) and policy D4 of the London Plan (adopted March 2021). These seek, among other things, to ensure development proposals are informed by and respect the distinctive qualities, character and features of the site and local area. The proposal would also conflict with the advice in the SPD.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other material planning considerations which would alter this finding. The appeal is therefore dismissed.