Roof alterations involving rear and side dormers and rooflights to front and side to facilitate loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 May 2018 by Graham M Garnham BA BPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3196702 72 Mount Pleasant, Barnet, EN4 9HH  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 Yasmeen Rashid against the decision of London Borough of Barnet Council.  The application Ref 17/6572/HSE, dated 3 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 December 2017.  The development proposed is roof alterations involving rear and side dormers and rooflights to front and side to facilitate loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. I consider that this is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the property and the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a well-proportioned detached house of modest scale. It has a hipped roof, with the ridge at right angles to the road. A large secondary hipped roof above a two storey front bay window of curved outline is a prominent feature of the design. There is an original smaller side extension towards the rear, also with a secondary hipped roof. 4. The roof slopes are uniform and at a relatively low angle of pitch. The loft conversion would be facilitated by raising the height of the roof as a whole, to create additional internal headroom. The increase in height of the top of the roof is quite modest, at 25 cm. However, this would be accompanied by increasing the pitch of all the roof slopes, and installing a crown roof for the depth of the main ridge. From the front, the eye would be drawn to the increased height of the roof by a rooflight positioned at the top, just under the crown roof. A side dormer (for the stair case) would add considerable bulk to the north west side of the roof. A dormer of similar scale, also only slightly below the height of the crown roof, would be added at the rear. 5. Mount Pleasant has an attractive and mature streetscene in which road-side planting adds openness. Houses are a mix of detached and semi-detached, of similar age, style and design. The appeal property is typical of many of the smaller detached houses in the locality, most of which appear to have retained Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3196702 2 their original form and roof profile. The general uniformity of roof slopes is evident in the street scene, even though the incline of the road makes it less easy to compare roof heights. A few houses appear to have had alterations to the roof, including steeper angles of pitch. In my view, these changes are not all positive features in the streetscene. 6. The changes to the front and north west side of the roof of the appeal property would be seen clearly from the road. I consider they would appear to detract materially from the form and proportions of the house, adding bulk to the roof and an increased sense of verticality to the shape of the building. The changes to the south east side would be less marked, and also more hidden from view by a larger house next door, at no.70. The changes to the rear and on the north west side would also be seen from the nearby side road, across the intervening back garden of no.74. However, from here the evenness of the Mount Pleasant streetscene is not evident, and I consider that little additional harm would arise. 7. Overall I conclude that the proposal would detract significantly from the character and appearance of the property and the street scene. It would be contrary to the standards of design and respect for local distinctiveness and character sought by Policies CS1 & CS5 in Barnet’s Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and Policy DM01 in Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies (2012). I have not identified conflict with any specific dimensional guidance in the Council’s Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016). However, I consider that the principles of harmony and consistency set out at paragraphs 14.8 & 14.9 would not be achieved in a satisfactory way. I consider further that the shortcomings I have identified would not be offset or outweighed by the use of matching materials, or overcome by the use of planning conditions. 8. Planning permission should therefore be withheld, and I dismiss the appeal. G Garnham INSPECTOR