Appeal 6002950

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; and • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to floor-to-ceiling heights.

The appeal site comprises a 2-storey semi-detached property that is sub-divided into 2 flats. It is located in a prominent position, close to the corner of [address] and [address]. [address], its 2-storey rear outrigger is visible within the street scene as it extends to a height greater than that of built form closer to the road.

The appeal site is located within an area which is predominantly residential in character, comprising terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings. The majority of nearby dwellings are 2-storey in height with pitched roofs on the main dwellings and rear outriggers. I observed on site that a number of properties in the vicinity of the appeal property have been altered at roof level, including through the addition of front rooflights and rear dormers. Nevertheless, the roofscape visible from [address] remains largely unaltered.

The proposed development would result in a substantially-sized rear dormer which would extend across the majority of the rear roof slope of the main building as well as that of the rear outrigger. By reason of its extension across a large part of the rear outrigger and its box-like, flat-roofed form, the proposed dormer would appear excessively large in the context of the existing property. It would be highly visible within the street scene along [address], appearing as an incongruous and unduly prominent addition.

The appellant highlights examples of rear dormers at 4 and [address]. There is insufficient information before me to enable a detailed comparison of these cases with the appeal scheme. In any event, each case must be considered on its own individual circumstances. Nevertheless, it was evident during my site visit that, due to the siting of Nos 4 and [address] and the intervening built form, there is relatively limited visibility of the dormers in the street scene. In contrast, the appeal proposal would be highly prominent in the street scene, detracting from the character and appearance of the area.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. In this regard, it does not accord with the relevant provisions of Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2016-2031 (adopted 2018) (the Local Plan). This policy seeks, among other things, development which respects the local context, is of a suitable scale, massing and height to the setting of the site and makes a positive contribution to the street scene.

Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 (the London Plan) requires that the minimum floor-to-ceiling height of dwellings is 2.5m for at least 75% of the Gross Internal Area. The floor-to-ceiling height which would be achieved in the proposed second-floor accommodation is disputed by the parties. Nevertheless, it is evident from the information before me that, regardless of the exact floor-to-ceiling height, the proposed development would have a floor-to-ceiling height substantially lower than that required by Policy D6. No justification has been provided for departing from the requirement within Policy D6.

In this regard, even though windows and mechanical ventilation are proposed, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the second-floor accommodation would achieve acceptable living conditions, including in respect of daylight and ventilation. This is irrespective of the quantum of floorspace proposed.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to floor-to-ceiling heights. As such, it would not accord with the relevant provisions of Policies D6 and GG3 of the London Plan and Policy 9 of the Local Plan. Among other things, these policies seek development which provides adequately-sized rooms with comfortable and functional layouts and is sufficiently ventilated.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.