Appeal 6005482

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey front extension, extensions and alterations to existing roof form, new gable ends and 2no. front facing rooflights at [site address] , London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/4312/HSE, subject to the following

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: ST_25_ [site address] _00 ([name]) - Existing Site and Location Plan ST_MAR_25_36 OAK_001 ([name]) - Existing and [name] and [name]_MAR_25_36 OAK_002 ([name]) - Existing Ground Floor Plan and Section ST_MAR_25_36 OAK_003 ([name]) - Existing First Floor Plan and Section ST_MAR_25_36 OAK_004 ([name]) - Proposed Ground Floor Plan and Section ST_MAR_25_36 OAK_005 ([name]) - Proposed First Floor Plan and Section Fire Safety Report and [name].

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

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building, the surrounding area and the streetscene.

The appeal site is a detached house located on the south-eastern side of [address] constructed of facing brickwork under a half-hipped (dutch gable) roof. It has been extended to the rear and is set behind an area of hardstanding used for off-street parking. The area is residential and sub-urban in character. This part of [address] comprises mainly detached, two-storey, houses in a traditional arrangement (with smaller front gardens and larger rear gardens).

The roof developments proposed would introduce two front rooflights and replace the existing dutch gable ends with a full width hip to gable roof extension at either end, creating a crown roof and a 1m higher front gable roof ridge. The proposed two storey front extension would bring the front bay window forward by 1.07m and the recessed front building line on either side forward by 1.25m. There would be an associated forward projecting gabled roof, with an increased ridge height of 1m to the existing front bay feature.

The dutch gables are not a particular feature of [address], although the neighbour at No.34 also has them. The change to a gabled roof would not be harmful to the appearance of this part of the road. There would be a crown roof element to the proposal, but there are other examples of crown roofs in the vicinity, and it would not appear to be out of place. The extension of the bay into a rectangular form with a higher gable, of itself, would appear compatible with the general form of the front elevation, but the increase in depth towards the road must be considered in the context of the existing building line. The building line broadly follows the curvature of the carriageway, with differences along both sides of the carriageway in terms of the set-back from the road.

The curvature in the road is not pronounced at the appeal site as it is further to the north. As far as I could tell at my site visit, No.38 is set forward of No.36, apparently having been enlarged at the front following a planning permission. The result is that the proposed front extension to the appeal dwelling would not appear at odds with the general setback of properties at this point in the road.

For the reasons that I have set out, I find that the appeal proposals would not be unduly obtrusive, out of scale, or detrimental to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the surrounding area and the streetscene. For these reasons the appeal will be allowed.

The statutory condition that provides a time limit on the start of development must be imposed. In addition, the council has suggested 3 conditions in the event that the appeal is upheld. I have considered these in the light of Planning Practice Guidance. I will adopt 2 of them for the following reasons: condition 2 is required for certainty and avoidance of doubt as to the development permitted, and condition 3 is to ensure that the development relates appropriately to the existing house. The third suggested condition would require that ‘no windows other than those permitted shall be inserted in the flank elevations of the 2-storey front extension facing both neighbouring properties’. This is not necessary because of the limited space available for windows in the flank of the 2-storey front extension and that any such windows, looking across the frontages of the neighbours, could not reasonably be said to be a threat to privacy.