Retrospective planning application to increase dormer width to 350mm from eaves against planning approval p1011.16

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 January 2018 by David Spencer BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 2 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/D/17/3188070 40 Palm Road, Romford RM7 7AR  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 Marlene Joseph against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering.  The application Ref P0773.17, dated 8 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 31 August 2017.  The development proposed is retrospective planning application to increase dormer width to 350mm from eaves against planning approval p1011.16. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a retrospective planning application for part first floor side extension, loft conversion to include rear dormer and rooflights together with raising roof at 40 Palm Road, Romford RM7 7AR, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P.0773.17, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan Drawing No. SP16prSP1 Rev A; and Plans and Elevations Drawing No. PRR02 Rev B. 2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other opening, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be constructed on the flank elevations. 3) The first floor window on the rear elevation serving the bathroom shall be permanently glazed with obscured glass and with the exception of a top hung fanlight shall remain permanently fixed shut and be retained as such thereafter. 4) The first floor side window as shown on the southern elevation shall be permanently glazed with obscure glass with no openings unless above 1.70m from finished floor level and thereafter be maintained and permanently fixed shut. Procedural Matters and Main Issue 2. The description in the decision is taken from the Local Planning Authority’s (LPA) decision notice which I consider more accurately describes the proposed development. It is also the description used on the appellant’s appeal form. Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/17/3188070 2 3. The LPA had previously approved under reference P1011.16 various alterations at No.40 Palm Road including, amongst other things, a part first floor side extension, loft conversion to include rear dormer and a redesigning and raising of the roof. At the time of my site visit it was evident that various building works had been undertaken and a large rear dormer was in situ. However, for the avoidance of doubt, my assessment of the appeal proposal is based on the submitted plans before me. 4. The appellant submits in their grounds of appeal that the proposed rear dormer could be built under permitted development rights. It is not for me to determine whether or not the appeal proposal benefits from a permitted development right. That would be a separate matter for a Certificate of Lawfulness. In any event this appeal follows the submission of a planning application. The submitted plans omit certain measurements but I have no reason to disagree with the LPAs assessment of the scale of the proposal in the officer report, which if correct, would mean the appeal proposal would not be permitted development. Nonetheless, the provisions of what can be built under permitted development rights are a material consideration and I sought further views on this from the LPA but nothing was submitted. 5. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the rear dormer on the character and appearance of No.40 Palm Road and its surroundings. Reasons 6. Palm Road is a residential street, mainly comprising of two storey brick and slate roof dwellings of late Nineteenth or early Twentieth Century construction. Due to the compact arrangement of houses, the rear elevations and roof profiles of these housing are generally not visible from within the street scene. Occasional, rear dormers of similar appearance to the appeal proposal can be viewed on side streets off Palm Road but in my judgment they are not a regular feature in the locality. 7. No.40 is a detached house of relatively narrow width where the layout uncharacteristically includes the significantly set back position of No.42 Palm Road to the south. The sizeable open off-street parking area to the front of No.42 means that the southern flank elevation of No.40 and the side profile of the rear roof are conspicuous in the street scene from the south. I was also able to view the rear of the property and observed that the rear roof profiles in this part of Palm Road have remained largely unaltered. 8. The proposed dormer on the submitted plans would be positioned a short distance up from the eaves and set below the present ridge line. It would only be narrowly set in from the side eaves to this detached dwelling. Accordingly, the dormer would occupy a significant area of the available rear roofspace. The pitched roof at No.40 has a broadly 45 degree angle such that the scale of the dormer would form a sizeable and bulky projection. From within the street and from the adjacent rear areas of Palm Road the dormer would appear as a dominant and disproportionate addition, which would sit awkwardly against the modest scale of the host roof and the twin gable roof form of the enlarged rear extension. As such the scale, position and bulk of the dormer would unbalance the appearance of host dwelling and would be conspicuously at odds with the largely simple and generally unaltered roof-scape in this part of Palm Road. Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/17/3188070 3 9. I therefore find the rear dormer would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of No.40 Palm Road and its surroundings. It would be contrary to Policy DC61 of the Havering Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2008 (the Plan) which requires, amongst other things, that development maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the local area. It would also be contrary to the design guidance on rear dormers contained in the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2008. It would also conflict with the objective of the National Planning Policy Framework to secure high quality design. Other considerations 10. I am mindful that Schedule 2, Part 1 Class B of the Town & Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) presents permitted rights for the enlargement of a house by way of an addition or alteration to its roof. I am satisfied from the submitted plans and the measurements contained in the LPAs report that a rear dormer could secured under permitted development rights which would be only marginally smaller than that proposed. In terms of the impact I have found on the host building and the local character there would be only a negligible difference between the appeal proposal and what the Government considers acceptable without planning permission through permitted development rights. I therefore attach significant weight to the Appellant’s available and plausible fall-back position under permitted development rights, which is a material consideration. Conclusions and conditions 11. I have found the scale and position of the rear dormer would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the locality and consequently contrary to Policy DC61 of the Plan. Section38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The ability and likelihood that within the permitted development rights in the GPDO a very similarly positioned and scaled rear dormer could be constructed with comparable effect on the character and appearance of the locality, is a material consideration. In this instance it signals a determination other than in accordance with the adopted development plan and consequently, the appeal succeeds. 12. It is not necessary to impose a time limit condition as the appeal proposal is largely implemented but I do consider a condition that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans to be necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. In order to protect the privacy of nearby residents, in accordance with Policy DC61 of the Plan, I consider conditions, as applied to planning permission reference P1011.16, removing the permitted development rights for windows or other openings on the flank elevations and requiring specified windows to be obscured glazed with limited openings to all be necessary and I have imposed them accordingly. David Spencer Inspector.