First floor rear extension, loft conversion with rear dormer, 2no. roof lights to front elevation and front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 October 2020 by Alison Scott BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 November 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/D/20/3247569 597 Westhorne Avenue, Eltham SE9 6JX • 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 & Mrs Assad Shaker against the decision of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Council. • The application Ref 19/4124/HD, dated 2 December 2019, was refused by notice dated 7 February 2020. • The development proposed is First floor rear extension, loft conversion with rear dormer, 2no. roof lights to front elevation and front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Notwithstanding the description of development set out in the banner heading above, which is taken from the application form, the proposal has been described by the Council as ‘Removal of chimney to rear roof. Part removal of chimney to front roof. Installation of two roof lights to front roof slope. Construction of front Porch. Construction of first floor rear extension. Construction of dormer roof extension to rear roof. Replacement of windows to rear elevation and associated external alterations.’ The appellant has used this revised description on the appeal form. I concur that this accurately describes the proposal before me and have considered the appeal on that basis. Main Issue 3. It is the proposed rear dormer and first floor extension that is in dispute between the parties. Based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that the other aspects of the scheme would cause no material harm and would not conflict with any development plan policies to which I have been referred. Therefore, I have confined my detailed considerations to those elements of the proposal which are in dispute. 4. The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposed rear dormer and first floor extension on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/20/3247569 2 Reasons 5. The appeal site is a mid-terrace two storey dwelling of arts and crafts influences and is characteristic of the other short terraces along Westhorne Avenue. 6. As it is the central dwelling of the row, there is slight variation in design to the rear elevation of the dwellings adjoining either side, as both of these houses project further than the rear building line of the appeal property. The eaves line of the appeal property also varies from the neighbouring properties as the rear wall of the dwelling rises higher than the adjoining dwellings, creating the raised eaves line here. 7. The first floor extension and increased roof form would not be harmful to the character of the host property in isolation as it would not project further than the adjoining building lines and would be more akin to the characteristics of these dwellings. Whilst the proposed overhang with pillar supports would not appear as a characteristic feature of the terrace, it would be of limited scale and also as it would be to the rear ground floor, not widely visible. It would not appear as a discordant extension to the rear of the dwelling. 8. The rear dormer is proposed to extend from slightly below the ridge line and would extend virtually the full width of the roof slope. The roof slope would extend further in order to project over the proposed first floor extension. 9. Despite the amount of additional roof that would be created as part of the proposal, the dormer element would add considerable bulk and mass to the rear roof slope. Given its large scale, width and height, it would appear as a top-heavy and overly dominant extension of the dwelling. It would not respect local character in the area. 10. Furthermore, there are no other rear dormer extensions along the terrace. It would dominate the roof slope of the host dwelling and disrupt the roof slope of the terrace as a whole. Given its prominence, it would be seen from the adjoining dwellings as well as a number of other residential dwellings surrounding the appeal site. 11. Whilst I have found no harm in respect of the proposed first floor extension, for the foregoing reasons I conclude that the proposed rear dormer would not complement the character or appearance of the dwelling and, as a consequence, would harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, this element of the proposal would be in conflict with Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies 2014 in their aims to achieve high quality design and to be in scale and character with the host building, as well as the advice contained within the Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (December 2018). Furthermore, the proposal would not accord with the collective objectives of Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan 2016 to achieve high quality design in developments. Other Matters 12. The appellants have drawn my attention to other houses where roof alterations have occurred. However, neither of these examples share the same circumstances as the appeal site, and therefore cannot be favourably compared. Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/20/3247569 3 13. The appellants may have been granted a certificate of lawfulness for a rear dormer, although they comment this would not provide sufficient space for their family needs. That scheme can be implemented and, whilst a larger space is preferable to them, the proposal before me would be a larger development than would otherwise benefit from permitted development and is thus considered on its own merits. 14. Whilst they comment that a more flexible approach to dormer extensions, similar to the approach of other Councils, should be adopted, I must have regard to the specific scheme before me and the policies of the development plan relevant to this site. 15. I note that the neighbours have not objected to the proposed development. However, the absence of objection does not in itself render the scheme acceptable; this is a neutral factor which does not weigh for or against the proposal. I must determine the appeal with regard to the planning merits of the case. Conclusion 16. I find no harm would arise to the character and appearance of the dwelling or the area as a result of the first floor extension. However, this element is inextricably linked to the dormer window that I have concluded would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed. Alison Scott INSPECTOR