Revised scheme for pitched roof dormers

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 May 2018 by Kevin Savage BA MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/D/18/3197363 13 Brantwood Gardens, Enfield EN2 7LY  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 Awlad Hussain against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield.  The application Ref 17/04768/HOU, dated 1 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 29 December 2017.  The development proposed is described as ‘revised scheme for pitched roof dormers.’ Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for rear and side dormers at 13 Brantwood Gardens, Enfield EN2 7LY, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/04768/HOU, dated 1 November 2017, and 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: TC/0010/GP/01; TC/0010/GP/02; TC/0010/GP/03; TC/0010/GP/04; TC/0010/GP/05; TC/0010/GP/06; TC/0010/GP/07; TC/0010/GP/08; TC/0010/GP/09; TC/0010/GP/10. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dormers hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing roof of the building. Preliminary Matter 2. I have used the description of development from the Council’s decision notice in the formal decision above as this more clearly describes the proposal than that given on the application form. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The rear dormer would be discreetly positioned out of public view, and would be modest in size and form. It would not form a harmful addition to the building or wider street, where other, larger rear dormers already exist with similarly limited impact on the street scene. From my observations, there are Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/18/3197363 2 no other examples of side facing dormers within the street. Due to the gently rising ground level of the street, and the raised position of the dwelling above street level, the roofline and proposed side dormer windows would be visible from the street. 5. My attention is drawn to a recent appeal decision (APP/Q5300/D/17/3167097) at the same property, where permission was granted for a very similar proposal for two side dormers and a rear dormer. Having viewed the plans for the approved scheme, the main difference is that shallow hipped roofs are now proposed to the dormers in place of the approved flat roofs. Given the similarity of the two proposals, and that the appellant could implement the approved scheme, this decision is a material consideration of significant weight. 6. The appeal decision found that the whilst the side dormers were not features of the properties in the locality, they would be set well back from the main front elevation of the property, and would appear as modest additions relative to the massing of the roof. In conclusion, the side dormers were not considered to form dominant or intrusive features. The only tangible difference between that proposal and the one before me is the inclusion of shallow hipped roofs to the dormer windows, which I find would be a modest improvement in appearance as the hipped design would better reflect the hipped roof of the dwelling. 7. Therefore, taking account of the aforementioned appeal decision, and the similarity of the two schemes, the proposed dormers would not detract from the character or appearance of the dwelling or surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal would not conflict with the aims of the development plan to secure high quality design in new development, articulated in Core Policies 4 and 30 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 (November 2010), and Policies DMD 6 and DMD13 of the Enfield Development Management Document (November 2014). In addition, I find no conflict with the similar design-related aims set out in London Plan (March 2016) policies 3.14, 7.4 and 7.6. Other Matters 8. An interested party has raised concern in respect of overlooking and loss of light from the proposed dormers. However, I observed existing side windows within the appeal property facing neighbouring windows, and given the position and relatively modest scale of the proposed dormers, I do not consider they would lead to discernible loss of privacy or light for neighbouring residents. Conditions 9. In respect of conditions, to provide certainty, a condition is required specifying the relevant drawings. For precision, I have amended the Council’s suggested condition to specify that the materials match those used on the existing roof, to ensure a satisfactory appearance. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out, the appeal is allowed. Kevin Savage INSPECTOR