Loft conversion and construction of a rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 October 2017 by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date:14 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/D/17/3182217 61 Southlands Drive, London SW19 5QL  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 Mrs Ghada Al Naimi against the decision of Wandsworth Council.  The application Ref 2017/2722, dated 9 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 July 2017.  The development proposed is a loft conversion and construction of a rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The proposal would result in the addition of a box-style dormer window structure above the existing window which itself extends partly above the eaves. Although the level changes result in this terrace of properties having differing roof heights, they nevertheless currently have a relatively uniform appearance. Although not visible from the public domain, the new addition would be visible from the surrounding properties and the communal area that serves this gated estate. 4. The design of this additional dormer, although mimicking the details and materials of the existing integrated roof structures, would result in it appearing as an uncharacteristic new feature that would dominate the rear roof slope. It would be at odds with the uniform and unobtrusive form of the existing dormers which are an integral part of the original design. The resultant double height dormer would appear as an incongruous feature that would detract from the uniformity, proportions and character of the rear of this terrace. The proposal would represent poor design in this context. Although not visible from public vantage points, it would detract from the appearance of the building when viewed from other properties and from the communal areas within this private estate. A lack of public prominence does not represent a good reason for accepting poor design. 5. The design shortcomings of the proposal would result in conflict with policy DMH 5(a)(i) of the Wandsworth Local Plan Development Management Policies Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/17/3182217 2 Document 2016 as it would represent poor design and would dominate and compete with the original appearance of the building. Policy IS 3(a) of the Wandsworth Local Plan Core Strategy 2016 also relates to the need for good quality design and the need to protect and reinforce the existing character of the borough. Accepting poor design, even in a private context, would fail to support the objectives of this policy. The proposal would also conflict with policy 7.6a of the London Plan as it would represent a design that is inappropriate to its context. These policies accord with the design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework and I afford them considerable weight. 6. The appellant makes reference to paragraph 4.137 of the Wandsworth Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Housing 2016 which advises that where new dormer windows are proposed, it is important that the original architecture of the building is studied carefully so that window details relate to the original building and that scale and location is carefully considered in relation to the exterior of the building as a whole. Although the proposal includes the same materials and detailing, it would detract from, rather than complement, the character and appearance of the existing dormers and the overall composition of this terrace. 7. Reference has been made to other planning permissions that have been granted within this private estate. These are not directly relevant to the form of the works currently proposed. The development would improve the accommodation within the property and make a more efficient use of the site which would be a benefit of the proposal. However, I am not satisfied that this, or the other matters put forward in favour of the works, would be sufficient to outweigh my concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal. Peter Eggleton INSPECTOR