Appeal 6002265

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character or appearance of the host dwelling, surrounding area and Norbury Estate Conservation Area (NECA).

The appeal site is located within a predominantly residential neighbourhood characterised by traditional two‐storey terraced dwellings, which collectively create a pleasant and coherent residential character. As outlined in the Norbury Estate Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (2014) (Appraisal), the (NECA) is one of the earliest London County Council cottage housing estates, constructed in a distinctive Edwardian cottage style. The Appraisal further notes that the estate possesses a village‐like quality, achieved through its characteristic architectural detailing and the careful articulation of building massing, which reduces the perceived density of the housing.

Accordingly, the significance of the NECA, insofar as it relates to this appeal, lies in the examples of cottage‐style architecture and the overall village character of the area. Appeal Planning Officer 6002265

With the exception of the existing ground‐floor rear extension, the external elevations of the host dwelling remain largely unaltered and continue to exhibit a traditional appearance. As such, the building is consistent with the established character of the NECA and makes a positive contribution to its overall significance. While there is evidence of dormers within the neighbourhood dormers do not generally inform the overall character of this terrace.

The proposed development, when considered alongside the existing ground-floor rear extension, would result in a visually busy and crowded rear elevation. The scale and siting of the dormer would result in a bulky and disproportionate roof addition which would dominate the rear roof plane. Whilst the dormer is set below the ridge line, set back from the eaves and the sides of the roof, this is marginally so and does little to mitigate its dominance. The introduction of a large unsympathetic rear dormer in this row of dwellings would erode the terrace’s simple and unaltered roofline. As a result, the proposed development would disrupt the traditional appearance of the terrace and harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, area and consequently the NECA.

The appellant has drawn attention to the presence of other dormer extensions along [address]. While these examples are noted, they are located some distance from the appeal property and are not part of the same terrace. The terrace in which the appeal site sits is free of dormer additions, and as such, the cited examples do not form part of the immediate or directly comparable context. Their presence therefore carries limited weight in assessing the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the area.

[name] acknowledge the existence of these other dormers, they do not alter the fact that the appeal terrace currently retains an unbroken roofscape that contributes positively to the traditional character of the NECA. The absence of dormer extensions within this specific terrace reinforces its coherent architectural form and the wider conservation area’s significance.

Overall, the proposed development would not appear subordinate to the host roof form and would create a crowed rear development, causing harm to the character and appearance of the building, surrounding area and NECA. The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the NECA. In such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework states the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the. The appellant contends that any harm arising from the proposal is outweighed by the benefits of making more efficient use of existing housing stock, supporting sustainable patterns of development, and serving the wider public interest through the consistent and proportionate application of conservation policies. While these points are acknowledged, they attract only minimal weight in this case. I have no evidence before me that there is a shortfall of housing with the bedroom number proposed. With regards to sustainable patterns, the proposal is to extend an existing dwelling not the creation of a new dwelling in a sustainable location. I have also found harm in relation to the character and appearance of the proposal. As such, these do not amount to public benefits of sufficient substance to outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the NECA.

Therefore, the proposed development would conflict with policies SP4, DM10 and DM18 of The Croydon Local Plan (2018), Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and the [name] and Management Plan (2014). These policies, Appeal Planning Officer 6002265 amongst other things, seek to ensure new development respects the scale and character of the host building and preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the conservation area.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed