Loft conversion including construction of a rear dormer window (including outrigger) and one front rooflight

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 February 2018 by J D Westbrook BSc(hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/D/17/3187205 3 Mauritius Road, London, SE10 0EH  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 Ms Ilsa Pole against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich.  The application Ref 16/4004/F, dated 2 December 2016, was refused by notice dated 11 August 2017.  The development proposed is described as a loft conversion including construction of a rear dormer window (including outrigger) and one front rooflight. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Applications have been made simultaneously for similar developments at both Nos 1 and 3 Mauritius Road. Both have been refused by the Council and both are the subject of an appeal which I have before me. I therefore have access to the details of both proposals and I have taken into account the potential for both to be constructed. I have dealt with each case on its individual merits but have noted the relationship between the two proposals and the properties concerned. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are the effects of the proposed dormers on:  The character and appearance of the area around Mauritius Road, and  The living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by way of privacy and outlook. Reasons 4. No 3 is a two-storey, mid-terraced house, situated on the south side of Mauritius Road. Mauritius Road comprises mainly terraced houses of similar design. All would appear to have two-storey rear outriggers and small back gardens. No 3 differs from most of the other houses on this side of the road by having a rear outrigger with a largely flat roof and rear parapet, instead of a very shallow mono-pitch roof. However, the eaves of the rear outrigger remain below the level of the eaves of the main roof, as is the case with other houses in the vicinity. The adjacent No 1 has some different design elements in that it has been rebuilt following war damage and includes a taller outrigger. Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/17/3187205 2 5. The proposed development would involve the conversion of the loft to living space. This would entail the construction of a mansard roof structure above the existing outrigger, and a further mansard roof on the existing rear roof slope. There would be dormer windows projecting from each of the mansard roof elements. There would also be a new rooflight inserted into the front roof slope, which would be extended in height by around 110mm. There are no objections from the Council to the rooflight, and I concur with this perspective. Character and appearance 6. The proposed development would be prominent in the view from Chichester Way. The increased height and bulk of the roof, especially above the outrigger, would be readily visible from the side and rear along Chichester Way, and would result in an appearance similar to that of a three-storey house having a largely flat roof with dormer windows. Policy DH(a) of the Council’s Local Plan: Core Strategy (LP) indicates that “Flat roofs will not be accepted on side or rear extensions when they would be visible from the public highway”. It goes on to note that “All new roof extensions should be designed to respect the scale and character of the host building, the street scene and the surrounding area”. 7. The Council’s Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance (SPD) adds to this policy by indicating that in achieving adequate headroom, the new form of a roof could give a house a top heavy look, damaging the character of the house and the street. In addition it notes that mansard roofs will only be appropriate where they are already part of the character of the street scene or where they would not be harmful to the appearance of the house. 8. In this case, the proposal would effectively create a flat roof to the outrigger that would be highly visible from Chichester Way, albeit with 70 degree mansard slopes facing south and west. Moreover, it would appear out of scale and character with the existing house and with the houses further along Mauritius Road, by virtue of creating a bulky second- floor element. The rear outrigger would be significantly higher than existing, and would become a dominant feature, creating a top heavy appearance to the house. Finally, mansard roofs are not part of the character of the street scene, and the proposed roof alterations would appear out of place in the view along the backs of the houses on the road. 9. The appellant refers to a Certificate of Lawful Development for an L-shaped rear dormer at No 43 Mauritius Road. However, this relates to a loft conversion that meets permitted development criteria and which is some distance from No 1. I accept that there is a fallback position at the appeal property with regard to permitted development rights, but these rights do not include any increase in height over that of the existing roof. At the time of my visit, there was no evidence of rear dormer developments along the street in the vicinity of the appeal property. 10. Finally, the appellant notes the existence of large modern buildings in the vicinity of the appeal site. However, in this case, the key view is of the backs of houses on Mauritius Street from Christchurch Way, and the proposal would appear significantly out of character within this view. Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/17/3187205 3 11. In conclusion on this issue, therefore, I find that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area around Mauritius Street. It would, on this basis, conflict with Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the LP, and with the SPD, which require development to positively contribute to the improvement of the built environment and to respect the scale and character of the host building and its surroundings. Living conditions 12. The element of the loft conversion that would be within the extended roof above the rear outrigger would have a window in the side elevation facing westwards towards No 1. The Council contends that the proposals would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 1 Mauritius Road by virtue of overlooking (should the side window be clear-glazed), and by virtue of overshadowing and an overbeating appearance, caused by the increased height and bulk of the new mansard roof. I consider that the issue of overlooking could be dealt with in this case by way of a suitable condition relating to the use of obscure glazing and non-opening windows. 13. I have no details relating to the impact of the proposed mansard roof on sunlight or daylight, but it would appear that there are no windows in the side elevation of No 1 and that the roof alterations would, therefore, have little detrimental impact on outlook from this perspective. However, the houses on this side of the road have only small back gardens, and the significantly increased height and bulk of the proposed extension with mansard roof above the outrigger would result in a somewhat overbearing appearance from the rear of both Nos 1 and 5. On this basis I find that the roof alterations would have a detrimental impact on the outlook from those neighbouring properties. 14. On this issue, therefore, I find that there would be a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring houses by way of outlook. It would, on this basis, conflict with Policy DH(b) of the LP and with guidance in the SPD, both of which require that new development should not result in unacceptable loss of residential amenity to neighbouring properties. Conclusion 15. I find that the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 1 and 5 Mauritius Road by way of outlook, and that it would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the area around Mauritius Road. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR