Appeal 6003789

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion with erection of rear double dormer roof extension and 3 front roof lights at [site address] , [site address] , Newham, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02441/HH, 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 the following approved plans: • Location & Block Plan, [name]: JND/1434/28 • [name], [name]: JND/1434/25, in so far as it aligns with the asbuilt elevations. • [name], [name]: JND/1434/26

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those as indicated in the application form.

For reasons of precision, I have taken the description used in the heading above from the Council’s decision notice. This is also used in the appellant’s appeal statement. I have however removed the reference to the development being retrospective, as this is not a form of development.

On my site visit it was evident that a development has taken place, however what has taken place doesn’t fully align with what is shown on the submitted plans. The pitch of the rear projection has been altered and does not match what is shown on the ‘asbuilt’ elevations. In addition, the ‘asbuilt’ floor plans do not match the ‘asbuilt’ elevations. The elevations plan shows the side box dormer set in from the side elevation of the rear projection, whilst the floor plan does not show this. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the elevations before me, and the floor plans in so far as they align with the elevations.

The Council refers to the preparation of the Draft Newham Local Plan, which is understood to be at Regulation 22 stage. I have not been supplied with a copy of the emerging Local Plan. However, the Council’s reasons for refusal do not identify any conflict with the emerging Local Plan and I note it remains at an early stage of preparation. I have therefore based my decision on the current adopted

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property relates to a two-storey mid terrace dwelling on [address]. Surrounding development comprises terraced dwellings of a similar size and style. On my site visit, it was evident that there is some minor variation in ridge heights along the terrace, with some sitting slightly higher, or slightly lower than others. Most properties also benefit from two storey rear projections, and rear dormers are relatively common.

Although the increased ridge height sits above that of its neighbours, the increase is minor and not readily apparent in views along the terrace. As noted, on my site visit it was evident that there was some variation in ridge heights along the terrace. In this regard, the increase does not alter the overall character and appearance of the terrace.

The increased ridge height is built upon the parapet walls, to accommodate the roof dormer. This is contrary to the guidance in the Altering and Extending your Home Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) whereby it recommends that parapet walls are retained where practical. The appellant however discusses the necessity for integration of the parapet into the dormer in this case, due the risk of water ingress and the need for appropriate flashing and continuous waterproofing membrane to ensure a durable seal. In any case, the parapet walls are still evident along the front roof slope, and there is some variation in the sizes of the parapet walls along the terrace. Given the above, although contrary to the guidance in the SPD, I do not consider the scheme to result in unacceptable harm in this regard.

The roof dormer is slightly set back from the eaves of the main dwelling. This, coupled with the variation in materials, promotes subservience and ensures that it does not appear as an additional storey. Additionally, I am mindful that the rear roof dormer is similar in size to that approved under a certificate of lawfulness at the property (Ref: 24/02669/CLP). There are also several similar roof dormers evident within the surrounding area, as illustrated in the appellant’s statement of case.

The side box dormer, over the existing rear projection, is of an increased depth to that approved under the certificate of lawfulness. However, it maintains a set back from the rear and side elevation of the existing projection and is set down from the ridge line of the property, ensuring subservience to the main dwelling. Additionally, there are various other similar developments evident in the surrounding area, as demonstrated by the appellant. The scheme would therefore not be out of keeping with surrounding development in this regard.

The Council has drawn my attention to a dismissed appeal on [address] (Ref: APP/G5750/D/25/3373200). The Inspector however discusses that the front face of the side box dormer rises over the wall below and has nominal set back from the eaves. To contrast, as set out, the side box dormer in this appeal maintains a set back from the side and rear elevation. Therefore, based on the information before me, I am not satisfied that the schemes are directly comparable.

The front rooflights are a common feature within the surrounding area. The Council has not raised any concerns regarding them, and I see no reason to disagree with this.

Overall, for the reasons set out, the development has an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It is in accordance with Policies SP1, SP3 and SP8 of the Newham Local Plan (NLP) and Policy D1 of the London Plan (LP). Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that responds positively to the character of an area.

The Council’s refusal reason refers to the schemes noncompliance with Policy SP2 of the Newham Local Plan (NLP). This policy however relates to healthy neighbourhoods. It also refers to Policies D4 and D9 of the LP. These policies relate to the use of tools for design analysis and design review processes and tall buildings. I do not find these policies relevant to the determination of this appeal.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have used a condition to specify the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of certainty. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the floor plan, in so far as it aligns with the elevations. A condition to control the external materials of the development is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons set out, the appeal is allowed.