Appeal 6001816

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a hip to gable extension, rear dormer, front rooflights and re-tiling roof at [site address] , Havering, Romford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P1163.25, 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 numbers: 00-ST-01 P01, 00-PR-EL-01 P01, and 00-PR-FP-01 P01.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the walls and windows of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The second floor window on the rear elevation serving the bathroom shall be obscure glazed, 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. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

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

[address] is a straight residential road. Its uniform, and consistent building line form define the character of the area. The appeal site, like most others on [address], is a semi-detached dwelling with a hipped roof which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. The appeal site, [site address] , has a simple form and mirrors its adjoining neighbour, [address].

Many dwellings have been subject to alterations including side extensions over time. Although these side extensions generally share a consistent pitch, they are stepped back and have a lower ridge height than the host dwelling. Moreover, the side extensions have unbalanced pairs of semi-detached dwellings. As such, symmetry between pairs of semi-detached dwellings does not form part of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposal is for a loft conversion, which would be achieved through a hip to gable conversion together with the addition of a rear dormer. While the gable roof would be different to the roof of No 13, it would not alter the pitch of the front roof slope or the ridge or eaves line. As such, despite being different to its attached neighbour, it would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the pair of dwellings. Similarly, the proposal would retain the front building line, continuing its positive contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

There is a high degree of intervisibility between the long gardens and the rear elevations of the dwellings along [address], owing to the open nature and absence of outbuildings or tall planting. The distance between the dwellings on [address] and those on [address] which back onto appeal site, in comparison to the height of the dwellings, also contributes to the open and spacious character to the rear.

The proposed dormer would alter the rear roof slope, adding mass which would occupy a large area. That being said, given the open and spacious feeling in the rear gardens, the dormer would not feel out of proportion with the existing dwelling, or its neighbour No 13. Moreover, given the separation distance between each pair of semi-detached properties on [address], the dormer would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the surrounding area.

Accordingly, the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would therefore comply with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021), which seek to ensure that residential development is of a high design quality that is informed by, respects and complements the distinctive qualities of the site and local area.

The proposal would also comply with the aims of 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.

The Council refers to precedent being set by another hip to gable extension at [address], which was constructed under ‘permitted development’. I see no reason why, if this proposal were to be allowed under a Section 78 appeal, that it would undermine the Councils ability to exercise its judgement in relation to similar development proposals on this or other sites, especially because each case is determined on its own merits and because each site will have different constraints and opportunities. Moreover, because I have found the scheme acceptable on design grounds it will not set a harmful precedent.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

The Council has suggested a condition to require the development is finished in the materials detailed under the ‘materials section’ of the application form. The application form details that the external walls and windows will match those used on the existing dwelling, and the roof will be finished in dark grey tiles. As the Council have identified that there is a mix of roofing tiles used on dwellings on [address], I do not find it necessary to secure the colour of the roofing tiles by condition. However, I have imposed a condition requiring the materials used in the construction of the external walls and windows to match the those of the existing dwelling, to ensure the proposal does not harm the character and appearance of the area.

A condition requiring the bathroom window to be obscure glazed and non-opening was also suggested by the Council. I have altered the wording of this condition in the interests of precision, and have imposed this condition in the interests of the privacy of the neighbouring residents.

Finally, a condition limiting the installation of any other windows in the side elevation of the development has been suggested by the Council. However, given the existing windows on the side elevation, I do not find it necessary or reasonable to limit the installation of any other windows in the interests of the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.