Appeal 6004986

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a proposed loft extension with rear dormer, front rooflights and PV panels; external works to the dwelling changing windows and the removal of the existing conservatory at [site address] Hill, Hampton, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/3954, subject to the conditions set out in the accompanying Schedule.

As the description of the proposed development indicates, the appellants seek permission for several elements. However, the Council’s decision notice and the officer report clarify that no objection is raised to most of the elements sought. The Council’s concerns relate solely to the proposed rear dormer. I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s assessment of the other elements of the scheme, and the main issue reflects this.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed rear dormer on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.

The appeal property is an end of terrace property standing at the junction of [address] and [address]. The houses on this, the appeal property side of [address] are of a different age and design to those on the opposite side. The appeal property and its adjoined neighbours are distinctly suburban in appearance having white rendered elevations, with roofs and front canopies clad in red tiles. Those on the opposite side of the road are older, probably Victorian, built in yellow [name] brick and slated roofs, albeit some roofs have been replaced. There is a varied roofscape.

The Council regards the proposed dormer as objectionable because, although acknowledging an attempt has been made to make it look more acceptable than a box dormer by adopting a mansard form, the structure would in its view dominate the roof form. The Council considers the dormer’s position as a ‘highly visible’ with its size and form transgressing the advice provided in the adopted Supplementary Planning Document for [name] and [name].

The Council took account of what it describes as the ‘.. number of similarly sized dormers .. seen in the surrounding locality.’ However, it attributed these little weight in its determination since they were carried out under what it describes as ‘previous legislation’ or under permitted development rights. Where planning permission was required for a nearby dormer, and was refused permission, I note that it was granted on appeal1.

The appellants intend to retain the roof’s hipped form and the dormer would be fitted wholly within the roof’s rear plane, below the ridge. Thus, when the appeal property was viewed directly from the front, or when approaching the property along [address] from the east the dormer could not be seen. The dormer’s side profile could be glimpsed at relatively close quarters when approaching the site along [address] from the west, but for most of the year, when the trees growing in the verge along the highway are foliated, it would be reasonably screened.

Approaching the site from the north along [address], the dormer would be largely masked in medium range views all year round either by extant development or by the mature eucalyptus tree growing in the appeal property’s rear garden. The natural screening would be accentuated for most of the hear by the leaves of trees growing in the pavement alongside the highway.

Thus, from most nearby streets, the dormer would either be hidden by existing structures or partially visible behind trees. The dormer, however, would be clearly seen at close quarters when viewed from [address] alongside the appeal property’s side garden. However, from here it would be viewed against the backcloth of other dormers occupying the terrace’s roof, and others beyond. I note the reasons provided by the Council for affording their presence little weight, but permitted development is a planning permission granted by government. The presence of these dormers cannot, in my view, be understated or overlooked since they and the many other dormers seen in the locality form an intrinsic and significant element of the surrounding area’s roofscape and character.

I consider the appellants have gone to some lengths to render the dormer’s design more acceptable than usual by adopting a mansard form; by the use of matching materials as suggested by the Council at pre-application stage and in marrying the form of the proposed fenestration with that appearing in the dwelling’s rear elevation below. Whilst seen at close quarters in the public realm the dormer’s impact would in my view would not prove unacceptable.

I conclude that the dormer would fit appropriately into the street scene as an addition to the host property without harming their character or appearance. I 1 At [address] therefore find no material conflict with those provisions of policy 28 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2025) seeking to ensure that the design of new development respects and is compatible with local character including the relationship to the existing townscape.

It is necessary that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, and a condition to this effect is therefore imposed in the interests of certainty. A condition in respect of materials is imposed in the interests of visual amenity.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, including the references to the National Planning Policy Framework. Whilst not decisive in my considerations I note that no local consultee objected to the proposal. No other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading to my conclusions.

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 following approved plans: 25015-LAY-DR001 rev. P01, 25015-LAY-DR010 rev. P01, 25015-LAY-DR020 rev. P01, 25015-LAY-DR050 rev. P01, 25015-LAY- PR001 rev. P01, 25015-LAY-PR100 rev. P01, 25015-LAY-PR200 rev. P01 and 25015-LAY-PR500 rev. P01

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.