Appeal 6003639

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue relevant to this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the building and the surrounding area.

[address] and the surrounding streets in the vicinity of the appeal site are characterised by predominantly terraced properties. Whilst there is some variety in architectural styles, there is a strong degree of coherence in terms of form, scale and massing which positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development sits in a terrace of six properties which exhibit central outriggers with hipped roofs which are distinctive in the context of the surrounding area and contribute positively to the character of the area. These outriggers, although to the rear of the properties, can be observed from [address] to the side and [address] to the rear. Although the neighbouring property at No 202 has a full width dormer on the main part of the roof, this does not upset the rhythm of the roofline due to its position next to the corner property.

The provision of an upward extension over the outrigger would appear prominent and would upset the rhythm and coherence of the roof forms of the terrace in the vicinity of the appeal property. The design of the extension sitting on top of a retained roof slope would appear discordant and unsympathetic to the architecture of the existing building.

Whilst the proposed dormer over the main rear roof slope would be set in from the boundary and relate well to the dormer on the neighbouring property, the dormer together with the extension over the outrigger would appear bulky and overly dominant.

There are a few examples of extensions over outriggers further along the street. However, these exist on outriggers to the side of properties and better assimilate into the roof form of the respective buildings, are less prominent and do not appear as incongruous.

In conclusion, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the building and the surrounding area. Therefore, it would be in conflict with Policy 53 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1 (Adopted 2024) which amongst other matters supports developments where they reinforce and/or enhance local character and distinctiveness and respond appropriately to their context in terms of scale, height and massing.

The appellant has argued that the neighbouring properties which also have central outriggers are single dwellings and would benefit from permitted development rights to build similar extensions to the roof as to that proposed. However, it is necessary to assess the proposal against the prevailing character of the surrounding properties as they are at present, not what they might look like in the future. The theoretical possibility that the proposed development may be possible under permitted development rights if the property were a single dwelling does not represent a fallback position, nor does it provide justification for the harm I have identified above and the associated conflict with the development plan.

The appellant’s statement includes some appendices which relate to other decisions. Some of those appendices listed in the statement were not provided ([name] and C) and no reference was made to them in the statement as to their relevance. The other appendices comprised officer reports for applications for the provision of dormers/extensions above outriggers which were recommended for approval. All these reports relate to proposals on properties with outriggers to the sides of the properties rather than in the centre. Furthermore, none were in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, and the context of the surrounding areas and visibility may be different.

Whilst the proposal may be acceptable in terms of impacts on living conditions with regard to light, outlook and privacy, this does not mean its form and positioning is acceptable in terms of impact on the character and appearance of the building and its surroundings.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.