Appeal 6004292

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion with a hip-to-gable roof extension and rear dormers to create a new bedroom, ensuite and Study at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02423/HOU, and the plans submitted with it, 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 following approved plans: Proposed Site and [name], [name]. 104 Proposed Ground Floor Plan, [name]. 100 [name], [name]. 101A Proposed Section 1, [name]. 103 [name], [name]. 102A [name], prepared by 50N Architects dated 04.09.25

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those as specified on the approved plans.

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

The appeal site relates to a two-storey semi-detached property, with parking to the frontage and a generously sized rear garden. The property benefits from an existing two storey side extension. Surrounding development includes mainly two storey semi-detached properties of a similar size and style. The immediate vicinity includes properties that have been extended and altered over time, including examples of loft conversions, roof alterations and dormers.

The proposed hip to gable extension to the main roof would be in line with the highest part of the existing roof. This would ensure that the main roof does not project above the ridge line of its attached neighbouring dwelling. The hip to gable extension over the two-storey side extension would be set down from the main roof, in accordance with the guidance set out in the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This would ensure subservience to the main property and soften the visual impact of the roof extension when viewed from the street scene. In this regard, the roof extension would not appear excessive or overly prominent when viewed from within the street scene and within the context of surrounding development, where there are numerous examples of various roof alterations.

Whilst the proposed development would reduce the gap between the appeal property and [address] at roof level, there is considerable variation in the gaps between properties in the area, with properties merged through joint side extensions, side dormers and hip to gable extensions. I therefore do not consider that the scheme would result in unacceptable harm in this regard.

The proposed rear dormer on the main roof would be set in from the sides and eaves of the roof and set down from the ridge line of the property. In this regard, it would be in accordance with the guidance provided in the SPD, as set out by the Council. Its overall scale would be commensurate to the main dwelling and when viewed within the context of surrounding development where rear dormers are a relatively common feature, it would not appear incongruous or out of keeping with surrounding development.

I acknowledge that the proposed rear dormer on the two-storey side extension would not meet the guidance set out in the SPD in that it would not be set down from the ridge line by at least 500 millimetres. Notwithstanding this, it would be set in from the side of the roof and from the eaves. It would also ensure some space between it and the ridge line of the side extension. It would sit lower and be smaller in both height and depth than the other dormer, ensuring subordinance to the main dwelling and the other dormer.

The Council object to the proposed zinc cladding on the rear dormers, outlining how the SPD sets out that materials should be of a similar visual appearance to those used on the existing house. Nonetheless, the zinc cladding would relate well to the existing dark tiles, offering a modern interpretation. In addition, modern cladding is evident on a rear dormer at [address], and there is variation in the materials used within the surrounding area, including more traditional brick work and render with orange roof tiles and more modern smooth render with dark roof tiles. Given this, the proposed zinc cladding would not result in material harm to the character and appearance of the host property or area.

Overall, for the reasons set out, I conclude that the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and area. It would be in accordance with Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Royal Borough of [name] 2012 and Policy D3 of the London Plan

Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure that new development responds positively to the local character of an area.

The absence of any material conflict with the development plan and the avoidance of visual harm together outweighs the conflict with the guidance in the SPD. A departure from the SPD is therefore justified for the reasons previously stated relating to the specific circumstances of the property and its surroundings.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions which I have considered in light of the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Where appropriate, I have adjusted the wording of the conditions in the interests of precision and enforceability.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents, including the fire statement, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

I have not used the condition requiring the two rear dormers to be of a colour and appearance to match those of the existing roof. As set out, I do not consider the zinc cladding to be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. I have instead used a condition to ensure that the materials to be used match those as indicated on the approved plans, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.