Appeal 6007197

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and ii) the living conditions for future occupiers.

The appeal site is a bungalow with a square plan-form under a hipped roof in the form of a pyramid. It has a side extension and side garage set back from the frontage, in an area generally developed with bungalows and semi-detached houses. The existing accommodation includes 4 bedrooms on the ground floor and 1 bedroom in the roof lit by a rooflight in the southern roof plane.

The proposal is for hip-to-gable roof extensions on both sides to accommodate two front dormer windows and a rear dormer extension. It is relevant to the consideration of the appeal that there is a lawful development certificate for hip-to-gable roof extensions, a rear dormer and front rooflights. The proposal would retain 4 bedrooms on the ground floor, while the accommodation at first floor level would also provide 4 bedrooms.

I have not been supplied with a copy of the plans upon which the lawful development certificate was based, but the officer’s report states that the rear dormer and hip-to-gable roof extension is a significant addition to the dwelling in itself, which will be done under permitted development. The conversion of the side extension into a garage is acceptable, and there is already a dropped kerb that provides safe vehicle access, with vehicles currently parking within the front curtilage. Essentially therefore, the matter before me is the acceptability of the 2 dormer windows in the front elevation.

The council’s [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is supplementary to Policies BP8 “[name]” and BP11 “[name]” of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document. It is therefore the principal guidance document for compliance with the relevant development plan policy in the consideration of the proposed front dormer windows. The parties will be well aware of this document. It states that in most circumstances front dormers will be unacceptable, and its Figure 6 illustrates the favoured form of dormer which relates to existing windows below, and those that are not acceptable which do not reflect the fenestration below.

The proposed dormers in this appeal follow this advice to an extent, but are unable to follow it all respects as the windows below are in the form of wide multi-pane casements. This is the crux of the design issue; there is no satisfactory relationship between the proposed dormers and the character and appearance of the bungalow. Furthermore, front dormers are not a feature of the surroundings, and the example at No.11 is not of a form and appearance that should be followed. The example at No.34 is more in keeping with the guidance in the SPD, but this dwelling is of a different design and is situated at the cul-de-sac end of the avenue and is not a persuasive precent. For these reasons I find that the proposed front dormers would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

Turning to the issue of the living conditions for future occupiers, the officer’s report accepts that the proposed first floor bedrooms would be well-lit by daylight and naturally ventilated, and would be of an appropriate size for their purpose. The one criticism was that these bedrooms would have no bathroom on that floor. In addition, it is said that an 8-bedroom dwelling would be out of character with the prevailing scale of residential development in the area. For the appellant it is said that the intended layout is to be rationalised, with one of the smaller upper spaces treated as storage and the downstairs arrangement adjusted so that the dwelling functions as five bedrooms overall. However, that is not what the submitted plans show. Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that this issue justifies the refusal of permission.

My overall conclusion is that the proposed front dormers would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. For that reason, the appeal will be dismissed.