Insertion of dormer windows to existing roof line to achieve economic usability of existing bathroom and roof room
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Heritage & Conservation
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 4 October 2017
by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 25 October 2017
Appeal Ref: APP/J1535/D/17/3179940
Meadow View, High Street, Roydon, Harlow CM19 5EA
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr David Lawson against the decision of Epping Forest District
Council.
The application Ref PL/EPF/0685/17, dated 6 March 2017, was refused by notice dated
10 July 2017.
The development proposed is the insertion of dormer windows to existing roof line to
achieve economic usability of existing bathroom and roof room.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the insertion of
dormer windows to existing roof line to achieve economic usability of existing
bathroom and roof room at Meadow View, High Street, Roydon, Harlow CM19
5EA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PL/EPF/0685/17,
dated 6 March 2017, subject to the following conditions;
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: 1021/2; 1021/3; 1021/4; 1021/5;
1021/6; 1021/7; 1021/8; 1021/21; 1021/22; 1021/30A; 1021/31A;
125/22 and 125/20.
3) 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.
4) Prior to the occupation of the bathroom as identified on Drawing 1021/8
the dormer within the north elevation hereby permitted shall be fitted
with obscured glazing and once installed the obscured glazing shall be
retained thereafter.
Application for Costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mr David Lawson against Epping Forest
District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Procedural Matter
3. The appeal has progressed in the name of Mr David Lawson and, for this
reason, the application for costs has proceeded in the same name.
Appeal Decision APP/J1535/D/17/3179940
2
Main Issue
4. It is considered that the main issue is whether the proposed development
would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Roydon
Conservation Area.
Reasons
5. The appeal property is a detached dwelling of an ‘L’ shaped form sited to the
rear of 54 High Street. The property externally appears to be a single storey
dwelling but does have first floor accommodation, including within the
roofspace associated with a mono-pitched roof. This roof extends from a
2-storey high brick wall comprising the shared boundary with the adjacent
public house. There is a clear view of this wall with its small windows at ridge
level from High Street but other parts of the property are screened from public
view from the road by other dwellings and trees.
6. The proposed development includes the erection of dormer windows and a
rooflight which would enable the roofspace to be more effectively occupied as
habitable accommodation. No specific objection has been raised by the Council
to the erection of the proposed rooflight.
7. A previous scheme to erect roof dormers was approved by the Council in 2003
(EPF/166/03) but this was of a different design. Reference has been made by
the appellant to the precedent for dormers associated with those at No. 54.
These were observed during the site visit. However, given the design of the
previous scheme and the individual circumstances of the neighbouring
property, this appeal scheme has been assessed on its own planning merits.
8. The property is situated within the Roydon Conservation Area where there is a
statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or
enhancing the character or appearance of the area. This duty is echoed in
Policy HC6 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan, including the Local Plan
Alterations (LP). Adjacent to the property is a Listed Building but the Council
has not assessed that the proposed development would conflict with the
statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving its
setting. There are no reasons to depart from the Council’s assessment.
9. This Conservation Area is principally characterised by properties of varying
sizes, types and designs fronting roads. The properties are predominantly 2-
storey and of brick and tile construction albeit there are examples of rendered
walls and more recent residential developments include accommodation within
the roofspace. Some of the properties possess dormer windows which form
part of the varied roofscape. Part of the Conservation Area extends to include
paddocks to the east side of the High Street which complement the verdant
character of The Green.
10. All the proposed dormers would be set well above the eaves of the roof and
would not be sited close to the side elevations of the roof. By reason of size,
the proposed dormers would appear subservient within the general extent of
the roofslopes within which they are proposed to be erected. The single
proposed dormer within the north elevation would be set down from the
property’s ridge. Within the eastern elevation, the roofs of the proposed
dormers would only be just below the ridge of the roof. However, by reason of
the space around and between these dormers, there would not be an
Appeal Decision APP/J1535/D/17/3179940
3
impression of an additional storey being added to the property. To assist with
the assimilation of the proposed dormers within the roofslopes their external
materials should match those of the property.
11. For the structural reasons explained by the appellant, the proposed dormers
would not be aligned with the windows within the ground floor elevations.
However, although within the Conservation Area, the property itself is not of
high architectural merit and there are limited public and private views towards
the property, especially the eastern elevation. Further, the size of the
proposed dormers would be sympathetic in scale and proportion to the existing
windows. Accordingly, although not aligned with the windows below, the
proposed dormers would not result in an incongruous development which
would be detrimental to the overall character and appearance of the
Conservation Area, particularly its roofscape.
12. For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would
preserve the character and appearance of the Roydon Conservation Area and,
as such, it would accord with LP Policies HC6 and HC7. These policies also
require development to be of a high quality of design which is sympathetic to
the Conservation Area and for the roofscape to be in keeping with the
Conservation Area. These policies are consistent with the National Planning
Policy Framework’s (the Framework) core principle of securing high quality
design.
Other Matters
13. The appellant has identified a family circumstance for the additional habitable
accommodation created by the proposed development. However, the appeal
scheme has been assessed on its own planning circumstances.
Conditions
14. The Council has suggested conditions in the event this appeal succeeded which
have been assessed against the tests in the Framework and the Planning
Practice Guidance. A condition to secure of the use of matching external
materials is necessary for the reasons explained. For the avoidance of doubt
and in the interests of proper planning, a condition is necessary to require the
proposed development to be erected in accordance with the submitted
drawings.
15. The Planning Officer’s report identifies that, to preclude overlooking and loss of
privacy to the occupiers of No. 54, the proposed bathroom window within the
northern elevation should be obscurely glazed and this should be secured by
condition. I share this assessment and a condition is necessary to require this
dormer window to be obscurely glazed. For the reasons given, it is concluded
that this appeal should be allowed.
D J Barnes
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 4 October 2017
by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 25 October 2017
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/J1535/D/17/3179940
Meadow View, High Street, Roydon, Harlow CM19 5EA
The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
The application is made by Mr David Lawson for a full award of costs against Epping
Forest District Council.
The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the insertion of dormer
windows to existing roof line to achieve economic usability of existing bathroom and
roof room.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying
for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. The appellant is seeking an award of costs on procedural and substantive
grounds. The procedural grounds are related to the failure to expediently
register the appeal application and not contacting the appellant to discuss the
application until the last day for its determination which made the appeal
necessary. The substantive grounds are the Council’s failure to properly
consider the application, including matters such as a lack of objections from
other parties, and take into account other schemes within the surrounding
area, including other dormers. The appellant also claims that the reason for
refusal was a ‘cut and paste’ from another application.
4. The Council considers the delay in registration is not of direct relevance to the
appeal claim and, although the contact was made on the last day for
determination, advice was provided to improve the scheme to overcome the
objections. A period to extend the determination was offered to enable the
amendments to be made. In response to the substantive grounds, the
Council’s objections to the application are claimed to be clear in the reason for
refusal and the Planning Officer’s report. The proposed development was
assessed on its own circumstances rather than other schemes within the
Roydon Conservation Area establishing any precedent.
5. Although costs can only be awarded in relation to unnecessary or wasted
expense at the appeal, the behaviour and actions of the Council in handling the
planning application can be taken into account. In this case, the issue is the
registration and validation of the application but this is a matter for the Council
Costs Decision APP/J1535/D/17/3179940
2
who needed to be satisfied that accurate and scaled drawings were submitted.
Once the Council was satisfied the application was determined within the
statutory period.
6. Costs may be awarded in circumstances where a more helpful approach would
probably have resulted in either the appeal being avoided altogether, or the
issues to be considered being narrowed, thus reducing the expense associated
with the appeal. However, even if there was a greater dialogue between the
parties, based upon the Council’s objections to the proposed development I do
not consider that this is a case where the appeal would have been avoided.
Although contact was made on the last day of the statutory period, it does
appear that the Council did seek to discuss amendments to the scheme with
the appellant and was prepared to allow an extension of time for the
consideration of an amended scheme. The opportunity to avoid the submission
of this appeal was not, therefore, taken by the appellant.
7. Whether the Planning Officer visited the property is unclear from the available
evidence because it was only raised in the appellant’s response to the Council’s
comments. The Council did not have the opportunity to respond to this claim
and I cannot reasonably reach a conclusion on this matter.
8. Matters of judgement concerning the character and appearance of a local area
and the need for specific evidence to be provided about the consequences of
the proposed development. Vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about
the proposal’s impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis, are
more likely to result in a costs award. In this case, although a different
conclusion has been reached in the determination of the appeal and a scheme
with dormers of a different design was approved in 2003, the application was
considered on its own merits and the reason for refusal is clear that the
Council’s objection to the proposed dormers was because of their proximity to
the ridge of the roof and the lack of alignment with the windows below.
9. The comments of the Conservation Officer do appear to include some matters
not of direct relevance to the proposed development and are statements of
design guidance. However, these comments are not included as part of the
reason for refusal which is clear about the alleged harm. The absence of
objections from other parties is not, by itself, an indication that the design of a
scheme is acceptable and in accordance with relevant development plan or
national policies.
10. The existence of other dormers within the Conservation Area adjacent to the
property are not specifically mentioned in the Planning Officer’s report.
However, the concerns raised by the Council are specific to the property and
the proposed development. It is likely, therefore, that the original application
would have been refused due to the design objections identified in the reason
for refusal. The submission of an appeal would still have been necessary.
11. For the reasons given, I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in
unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice
Guidance, has not been demonstrated and a full award of costs is not justified.
D J Barnes
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.