Appeal 6003730

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a ground floor rear and side extension after removal of existing bay; loft extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02146/HOU, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: [name]-01, BLO-01, BLO-02, SUR-01, SUR-02, SUR-03, SUR-04, LAT-01, LAT-02, LAT-03 and LAT-04.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the Planning Fire Safety Strategy prepared by id8 designs ltd.

The appeal proposal comprises two distinct parts including a ground floor side and rear extension and a loft conversion with a side dormer window extension. The Council’s reason for the refusal related solely to the side dormer roof extension. Moreover, the ground floor extension was subsequently granted planning permission in December 2025 (Ref 25/02848/HOU). This remains extant. The main issue in this case therefore is the effect of the side dormer roof extension upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area, including the [address] Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a gable fronted, two-storey detached dwelling set within the [address] Conservation Area (CA); a small residential enclave, the special character of which is described by the Council in their published planning information for the CA as being a late Victorian residential development of distinctive groups of red brick houses. The appeal property sits within a row of similar gable-fronted dwellings set close to each other behind fairly short front gardens along the south side of [address]. No 50 is a typical example of a property from its time and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

The appeal property is set away from the flank wall of its neighbour at No 48 by the width of a narrow pedestrian access. The proposed loft conversion would include a flat roofed, side dormer facing towards No 48.

The proposed dormer would be recessed behind the dwelling’s front elevation by a distance of almost 6m and set away from its rear elevation by approximately 2.7m. In addition, it would be set down from the property’s ridge and up from its eaves and finished with tile hanging to match the existing roof. Although it would have a strong horizontal emphasis, in terms of its scale and overall size it would sit reasonably comfortable within the expanse of the dwelling’s side roof.

The Council has correctly identified the proposed dormer’s significant degree of set back from the dwelling’s front elevation. However, they consider, along with other views expressed, that the dormer would intrude unacceptably into the roofscape along this run of houses. They find that this would be out of keeping and disruptive to the area’s symmetry. I disagree.

I observed for myself the regimented alignment of the front facing gables, each furnished with decorative finials, along the south side of the road. This imparts a significant and locally distinctive sense of rhythm and cohesion to the dwellings within this part of the CA. Importantly, the gabled front facade at No 50 would remain unaltered. When observed from distance in vistas in both directions along [address], the appeal property would retain the forward projecting outline of its regimented roof form within the street scene. When viewed from closer quarters, the side dormer would be largely screened from sight by the bulk and close proximity of the neighbouring dwelling at No 48. In my judgement, the dormer would likely only ever be glimpsed from its surroundings, including from [address] to the rear of the appeal site, and only then just in part. It would be seen merely as a deeply recessed and minor side adjunct that would be reasonably integrated with the side roof slope, and which would be further obscured in part by the retention of the dwelling’s two original side chimney stacks front and rear.

Overall, due to its size and position, I find the dormer would be neither intrusive within the street scene nor incongruous in its setting. It would therefore preserve the character and appearance of the CA. As such, there would be no conflict with Policies CS8, DM10 or DM12 of the Council’s Core Strategy 2012, or with Policies D3 and HC1 of The London Plan 2021. Between them these policies seek to ensure development displays a quality of design that respects and responds positively to the local character and distinctiveness of an area and which preserves or enhances heritage assets.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A further condition is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in materials to match the existing in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. In the event of the appeal succeeding, the Council has suggested two further conditions. I have included the condition requiring the development to be carried out and maintained in accordance with the submitted [name] in the interests of safety.

The dormer proposes one small window to its face and which would look directly towards the side roof slope of No [address] proximity. Due to its position, there would be no prospect of any overlooking that would directly affect existing levels of privacy at [address]. I therefore have no reason to impose a condition to control the nature of glazing within the side facing window.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.