Appeal 6001803

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development on the application form referenced only the cladding on the dormer, rather than the dormer structure itself. The Council revised the description of development to reflect the change. The appellant has indicated within their statement that the revised description is correct. Reference to “retention” in the description of the application is not a form of development. However, the application form confirms that the development has been completed and I was able to see this during my site visit. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

A Certificate of Lawfulness was granted in 2022 for a rear dormer and front rooflights (Ref: D0061.22). The dormer subject to the Certificate of Lawfulness was to be finished in hanging tiles in order to comply with the conditions set out at Class B.2 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO).

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

The appeal site is a semi-detached brick dwelling. To the front, the dwellings on [address] contribute to the consistency of the estate through their highly similar material palette and detailing. The rear of these dwellings have been subject to alterations over time. However, these alterations appear to have remained at ground floor level and have used similar materials to the existing dwelling. Accordingly, additions to dwellings along [address] have been subtle, and have retained the cohesiveness of the character and appearance of the area.

The rear gardens along [address] slope upwards, away from the houses. From the far end of the gardens, views of the back of these dwellings are highly visible. Similarly, the rear of a few of the dwellings on [address] can be seen from [name], including the appeal site.

The combination of the horizontal cladding, which is an alien feature on a rear roof slope, together with its off-white colour, which is not of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse, disrupts the proportions of the host dwelling through accentuating the size of the rear dormer. The cladding highlights the dormer, giving it a prominent appearance against the brick walls of the host dwelling, and the dark tiled roofs of the adjacent dwellings. Although it is only glimpsed from the front of [address], it is highly noticeable as an incongruous feature within this view. It is equally noticeable, and harmful, from the gardens of dwellings on [address], and within the street scene on [name]. As such, the development detracts from the host dwelling and is visually intrusive within the surrounding area and is neither modest nor recessive in appearance.

A fallback position has been suggested, in which the dormer could be retiled such that it would comply with the provisions of the GPDO. The Council has suggested that there is some discrepancy between the width of the rear dormer as shown in the Certificate of Lawfulness and the rear dormer as built, although the as-built dormer is of a lesser width.

This fallback position has a real prospect of being implemented if this appeal is dismissed. However, the fallback would be finished in materials that would match those used in the construction of the original dwelling. In the case of the Certificate of Lawfulness, the dormer would be finished in hanging tiles. As such, given that the materials used in the appeal proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, the fallback would be less harmful than the appeal proposal.

Horizontal cladding has been used on other dwellings on the estate, notably 31 and [address], on an outbuilding and rear extension respectively. The cladding on these nearby dwellings is conspicuous; however, it is positioned below the eaves of both dwellings. The harm in this regard is moderated to a different degree owing to their lesser prominence in comparison to the dormer at the appeal site. For these reasons, the use of cladding on the nearby properties does not justify a departure from the prevailing character of the appeal site and surrounding area.

A 2 storey side extension, part single, part 2 storey rear extension was approved in July 2022 (Ref. P0649.22). However, I could not see any evidence that this had been constructed during my site visit. Even if it were to be built, although the dormer would be shielded from view from the front of [address], it would still harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and would be highly visible from rear gardens and within the street scene of [name].

[name] accept that the cladding may reduce maintenance over time, and would improve the weatherproofing of the structure, I have not been provided with evidence to show that it is more suitable than materials that match the existing dwelling. In any case, the off-white cladding does not relate well to its context, and the marginal benefits do not justify the harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has suggested that a condition could be imposed to alter the finish of the cladding through either staining or repainting it. However, limited details of what this would entail or how it could be achieved have been provided in evidence. In the absence of this clarity, I am not satisfied that a condition would deliver sufficient certainty that would overcome the objections to the use of materials here. Accordingly, this would not mitigate the harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area that I have identified.

As such, the development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) and Policy D4 of The London Plan (2021), which collectively seek to ensure that residential development is of a high quality that is informed by, respects, and complements the distinctive qualities of the site and local area.

The proposal would also be contrary to the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011), which seeks to sure that extensions and alterations enhance and protect the positive characteristics of individual dwellings and the wider streetscape.

In reaching my conclusions, I have been mindful of the fallback position and that a rear dormer window of similar, or matching, proportions could be constructed with deemed permission under the GPDO. However, the materials used in the construction of the as-built dormer are the principal area of concern. It has not been demonstrated that a condition could satisfactorily resolve these issues. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.