Appeal 6001926

The appeal is dismissed.

At my site visit, I observed that construction was underway. Rooflights had been installed on the front roof slope and a rear dormer extension had been erected. However, the front dormer window shown on the submitted plans had not been constructed. For clarity, my assessment is based on the plans before me, rather than what had been constructed to date. Any works carried out not in accordance with those plans would be a matter between the Council and appellant.

The Council’s reason for refusal relates specifically to the front dormer window and no objection has been raised to the rear dormer window element of the appeal proposal. Based on my site visit and the evidence before me, and having regard to its siting, scale and design, I find no reason to take a different view.

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 forms half of a pair of two-storey semi-detached properties on [address]. Its pitched roof and fenestration are consistent with those of adjoining [address] and the nearby semi-detached pair at 1–[address]. Although building types vary in this predominantly residential area, the front roofscape is generally free of major alterations, creating a consistent and cohesive pattern along the street.

The Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (the SPD) seeks to minimise the bulk of highway-facing dormer windows, requiring these to have a width no greater than 1.2 metres and not exceed its height; and to have pitched roofs unless a different form of roof can be demonstrated to better accord with the original dwelling and the street’s character, particularly neighbouring properties.

The appeal proposal includes a flat-roofed dormer window to the front elevation. It would sit only slightly below the ridge. It would have a width of approximately 3m, which would exceed its height, and would span more than half the width of the roof slope. This would add substantial mass to the front roof plane and would be contrary to guidance within SPD. In addition, the front dormer windows would not align with the existing windows on the front elevation. As a result, the dormer addition would dominate the front elevation and give the host building a top-heavy, cluttered appearance. Consequently, it would appear at odds with the neighbouring semi-detached dwellings at Nos 1, 3 and 5 and would give these 2 pairs of semi-detached properties an unbalanced appearance. It would also disrupt the generally consistent roof line within the street. Overall, the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

I do not agree with the appellant’s argument that there are front dormers of comparable design, scale and massing on [address], or that any such precedents demonstrate successful integration without harm. Nonetheless, I have had regard to existing front dormers along this section of the street. Nos 5 and 15 each have a pair of small pitched-roof dormer windows, and No 43 has a larger flat-roofed dormer occupying only about half of its roof slope. None of these developments are directly comparable to the appeal proposal in terms of design, scale or massing and their existence has not led me to an alternative conclusion on the main issue. Notwithstanding these examples, the front roofscape along this section of the street remains generally consistent and cohesive.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) (the LP), and Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021), both of which, amongst other considerations, seek to deliver high-quality design that respects local context.

The Council has raised no objection regarding the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, it objects to the adverse visual impact of the proposed front rooflights and front dormer and refers to LP Policy 7, which concerns residential design and amenity. [name] have assessed those effects under character and appearance, and as this policy does not specifically address that matter, it has not been determinative in my consideration of the main issue.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the proposed development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.