Appeal 6007361

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for dormer to rear roof slope and conservation rooflights to front roof slope at [site address] , Wanstead, Redbridge, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Reference 0040/26 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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: 1416-550 and 1416/550-LP.

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.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Aldersbrook and [address] Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property is a mid-terrace dwelling within a predominantly residential area. It forms part of a terrace characterised by a coherent Edwardian architectural composition, including consistent facades and detailing, uniform eaves and ridge lines, and a regular rhythm of ridge finials and chimney stacks, which collectively contribute to the established townscape character. Several neighbouring and nearby properties within [address] and the wider urban block contain rear dormer additions and loft alterations of varying forms and proportions, including examples which exhibit limited set-ins from the roof edges. While some alterations pre-date the current CA designation, they nonetheless contribute to the character of the area as it is presently experienced.

The appeal site is also located in the CA. The terms of Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The Aldersbrook Conservation Area and [address] [name] (2020) (the CAA) identify the significance of the Aldersbrook Conservation Area as deriving from the collective contribution of Edwardian housing expressed through a consistent architectural language, to which the appeal dwelling makes a positive contribution. The CAA notes that the area’s character is vulnerable to gradual erosion through the loss of architectural detail and advises that rear dormers should generally be set in from roof edges to remain subordinate. However, it recognises that rear dormers may be acceptable where character and appearance are preserved or enhanced.

The Council’s Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (the SPD) advises that roof alterations within a CA should remain subordinate to the host building.

The proposal would introduce a dormer within the rear roof slope, set below the ridge line and above the eaves, with side margins retained to both flanks. Whilst the side set-ins would measure approximately 0.5 metres, rather than the preferred 1 metre identified in the CAA and SPD, the retained margins would nevertheless visually contain the dormer within the roof slope and avoid the appearance of a dominant or full-width roof addition that would unbalance the proportions of the historic building. The principal architectural details which define the terrace roofscape, including the ridge line, eaves alignment, chimney stack rhythm and ridge finials would remain. As a result, the very roofscape components identified within the CAA as contributing most strongly to the CA’s significance would continue to be clearly legible.

The rear roof slope would not be readily visible from [address] or from the principal public vantage points from which the dwelling and wider CA are experienced. Any views from neighbouring properties to the north would be limited by distance and materially filtered by intervening vegetation and mature tree cover, substantially reducing the prominence of the proposal. Where visible, the dormer would appear as a contained and proportionate addition sitting comfortably within the established pattern of roof form variation evident elsewhere within the terrace and wider urban block. Importantly, the key features which define the terrace roofscape and contribute to the significance of the CA would remain clearly appreciable. In this context, the proposal would not appear out of scale, incongruous or intrusive.

I have had regard to the appeal decision1 referred to by the Council. However, that decision relates to a property located some distance from the appeal site and the present appeal falls to be determined on its individual merits, having regard to the proposal’s visual impact within the street scene and wider CA, and to the 1 APP/W5780/D/25/3360800 established presence of rear dormers and roof alterations of varied form, scale and proportions within its immediate surroundings. These different contextual circumstances limit the extent to which the previous appeal decision can be relied upon in this case.

The Council raises no objection to the proposed rooflights. Given these would have limited presence from the street scene, I see no reason to disagree with that

Taking these factors together, the proposal would have a neutral effect on the significance of the CA, preserving its overall character and appearance. The alteration to the host dwelling would have limited visual impact and, where visible, would read as a proportionate response to its context whilst maintaining the key elements which contribute to the significance of the CA. While the proposal involves a modest departure from the preferred set-in guidance within the CAA and SPD, it would nevertheless accord with the overarching objectives of those guidance documents by preserving the character and appearance of the CA rather than representing a discernible impact upon its heritage value.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. It would also preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and there would be no harm to its significance as a designated heritage asset. As such, the proposal would accord with Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies LP26, LP30 and LP33 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (2018), which amongst other things, seek to protect heritage assets and deliver high quality design.

I have considered the tests of paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework and advice in the Planning Practice Guidance: Use of planning conditions. In addition to the statutory time limit condition, a condition specifying the relevant plans is necessary to provide certainty. A condition relating to materials is also reasonable and necessary in the interests of character and appearance.

For the reasons given above, having taken account of the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, the appeal should be allowed.