Appeal 6003166

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for rear roof dormer and roof extension over outrigger, 2 no. front rooflights at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 252436FUL, 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 nos 25/556/LP/01; 25/556/PR/01; 25/556/PR/02; 25/556/PR/03; 25/556/PR/04; 25/556/PR/05; 25/556/PR/06.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the side-facing window in the roof dormer has been fitted with obscured glazing, 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. Once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

This appeal has been made on the basis of the Council’s failure to determine the planning application within the statutory timescale. The Council has provided a statement explaining that, had it been able to do so, it would have refused planning permission on the grounds of the effect on the character and appearance of the area and on the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular regard to outlook.

Accordingly, these matters shall form the main issues of this appeal.

The appeal site is a mid-terrace two-storey property in a parade of shops. The properties in the parade have retail units on the ground floor and residential accommodation above. To the rear of the parade of shops is a service road and further residential properties. The frontages of the properties in the parades on both sides of the street have a similar appearance, mostly with first-floor bay windows with gable features. These traditional and cohesive design features contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed roof extension and dormer would be visible from [address], however public views would be significantly restricted by the rear roof extension and dormer at the adjoining property at [address] (No 158).The roof extension and dormer would be set below the ridge line of the existing roof and set back from the rear-most edge of the roof of the outrigger. The design and massing of the roof extension and dormer would be very similar to that at No 158. Furthermore, the application form states that the exterior materials would match those of the existing building. As such, the proposal would reflect the existing dwelling and roofscape.

For these reasons, the proposed roof extension and dormer would not be an unduly bulky or dominant addition to the rear roofslope. Two rooflights would be installed in the front roofslope of the appeal property, however this would not significantly alter the frontage.

Overall, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore accord with policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) (DPD 2013), policies 1.1(g), 1.2(f), 2.1(c) and 2.10 of the Ealing Development Strategy 2026 Development Plan Document (2012) (DPD 2012), and policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP). Amongst other things, these policies require development to be coherent, to complement the scale and materials of existing buildings, and to positively respond to the local context including with regard to form and proportion.

The proposed extension and dormer would adjoin the existing roof extension and dormer at No 158 and would not project any higher or further than this existing extension and dormer. Consequently, although the proposed roof extension would increase the massing above the outrigger, the proposal would not result in a significant additional loss of outlook or sense of enclosure compared to the existing situation.

The proposal would therefore not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The proposal would therefore accord with DPD 2013 policies 7A and 7B and LP policy D6, insofar as they require development to protect and achieve a high standard amenity, including with regards to daylight and sunlight.

The Council has not suggested any conditions. I have therefore considered whether any conditions would be required, having regard to the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans to provide certainty.

A condition requiring the external materials to match the existing dwelling, as per the application form, is therefore necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. A condition would also be necessary which would require the new side-facing second-floor window to be obscure-glazed and non-opening beneath 1.7 metres above floor-level, to prevent any loss of privacy for the neighbouring property.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.