Appeal 6001630

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of loft space involving a dormer extension at rear, rooflights to front roofslope, rooflight and solar panels to flat dormer roof and removal of a rear chimney at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DM2025/00900, 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 PLN 01 [name], PLN 02 [name], PLN 03 [name], PLN 04 Works Section A-A Existing, PLN 05 [name], PLN 06 [name], PLN 07 [name], PLN 08 [name], PLN 09 [name], PLN 10 Works Section A-A Proposed and PLN 11 [name] – Block Plan.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the approved [name] prepared by [name].

Construction works shall take place only between 0800 and 1800 on Monday to Friday, 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturday and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development comprises conversion of loft space involving a dormer extension at rear, rooflights to front roofslope, rooflight and solar panels to flat former roof and removal of a rear chimney. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.

The appeal property is a semi-detached building which has been subdivided into 3 flats. The property is located within an area which is residential in character and comprises detached and semi-detached dwellings of varying architectural styles, some of which have been altered and extended.

The appeal property is located within the [address] / [address] Area of Special Local Character (ASLC). The ASLC is a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) which predominantly consists of late Victorian, early Edwardian semi-detached properties and inter-war housing set on tree-lined streets. The appeal property largely retains its historic form and character and, as such, it contributes positively to the significance of the NDHA.

The appeal proposal is a roof conversion and rear dormer extension to provide additional bedroom and bathroom space for the first floor flat. The proposed rear dormer would extend to the existing main ridge height. While it would extend the majority of the width of the existing property, it would be inset from the sides of the roof. I am satisfied that the dormer would be sufficiently inset from the flank elevation of the appeal property that it would appear subservient to the existing building. Accordingly, the proposed dormer would be of a suitable scale and massing and would not appear overly large or dominant. Its windows would have a vertical emphasis and balance visually with the windows on the existing property.

The use of tiles matching the existing roof materials would ensure that the dormer would be an attractive addition to the existing building, responding to the local character and achieving a high standard of design.

I acknowledge that the dormer would be contrary to the Council’s Design of Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document as it would not be set below the ridge of the existing roof. Nevertheless, this document has the status of guidance rather than policy and, as I have reasoned above, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not detract from the character and appearance of the host building.

Alterations visible from the front elevation of the appeal property would comprise 4 rooflights to the existing roofslope and solar panels located on the flat roof of the rear dormer. These changes would erode the symmetry between the appeal property and its semi-detached neighbour to some degree. However, I observed on site that the properties differ in their elevational and boundary treatments and, as such, do not appear symmetrical. In this context, the proposed changes, which are limited in scale and relate to the roof level only, would not unduly harm the symmetry of the semi-detached pair.

I observed on site that there are variety of architectural styles present in the immediate vicinity of the appeal property. In addition, I observed that the roof spaces of a number of nearby properties, including those of broadly similar architectural styles to the appeal property, have been converted. I acknowledge that the nearby roof conversions and dormer extensions may have been undertaken using Permitted Development (PD) rights, over which the Council has limited control. Nevertheless, as a result of these works, rear dormers and rooflights on front roofslopes now form part of the character of the area. From my observations on site, they do not detract from the character and appearance of the NDHA.

In this regard, the proposed development would not appear incongruous. It would conserve the character and appearance of the NDHA. Therefore, I consider that the proposal would not cause harm to the significance of the NDHA.

Taking account of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. As such, the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of Policies 28 and 30 of the Sutton Local Plan 2016-2031. These policies, among other matters, seek development which respects the local context, responds to local character and heritage assets and conserves and, where practicable, enhances elements which contribute to an ASLC’s particular character or appearance.

To meet legislative requirements, I have imposed a condition to address the period for commencement. Conditions requiring compliance with the submitted plans and [name] are also necessary for reasons of certainty.

A further condition requiring the materials to match those of the existing building is necessary, in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area.

A condition limiting working hours is necessary to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties during construction.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development complies with the development plan as a whole. As there are no material considerations which would justify determining the proposal other than in accordance with the development plan, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.