Rear facing loft conversion with front roof slope skylight windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 November 2020 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 January 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/U5930/D/20/3257009 195 Coppermill Lane, Walthamstow, London, EH17 7HF • 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 Jane Ball against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. • The application Ref 201077, dated 31 March 2020, was refused by notice dated 3 June 2020. • The development proposed is rear facing loft conversion with front roof slope skylight windows. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The description of the proposed development is taken from the application form. The decision notice describes the development proposed as “Construction of dormer roof extension to main rear roof and part extension above two storey outrigger, together with installation of two roof lights to front roof.” Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is a two storey, brick-built, mid-terrace dwelling which like neighbouring properties, has a two storey outrigger to the rear. 5. The appeal property is located within a largely residential area which, in this location, is characterised by the presence of terraced houses set back from the road behind short gardens, with longer gardens to the rear. The area is relatively densely developed and the rear garden area provides for a sense of greenery and openness. Appeal Decision APP/U5930/D/20/3257009 2 6. During my site visit I observed that, whilst many dwellings have been altered and/or extended, such changes tend to appear largely in keeping with host properties and the surrounding area. 7. Amongst the additions visible to the rear of dwellings along the terrace of which the appeal property forms part, are numerous dormer roof extensions. These sit along the roof slope and are of a generally simple form. As a consequence, the frequent presence of simple dormer roof extensions makes a contribution to local character. 8. However, unlike the dormers present along the terrace, the proposed development would comprise a large and relatively complex “L-shaped” dormer, extending development across both the main roof and the outrigger. As a consequence, the proposal would draw attention to itself as an incongruous dormer extension, unlike others along the terraced row. 9. The harm arising from this would be exacerbated as a result of the scale, form and prominent location of the proposed development. By extending across the main roof and the outrigger, the proposal would appear as a bulky, top-heavy development and this, combined with its prominent location, high-up on the dwelling, would result in an unduly dominant extension. 10.Consequently, the proposal would upset the rhythm and overall form of the terrace within which the appeal property is located. This would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Local Plan1 policies DM4 and DM29; to Core Strategy2 policy CS15; and to Waltham Forest Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Extensions and Alterations (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living conditions 11.Windows from the rear of Ground Floor Flat, 193 Coppermill Lane have an outlook towards the appeal property and due to its height, projection and close proximity, the proposed dormer extension would be visible from this neighbouring property. 12.However, whilst, to some limited degree, the proposal might be seen to “loom” over this neighbouring dwelling, the overall impact of this would not be unduly harmful, given that rear windows of the neighbouring flat already look out towards the appeal property and only part of the proposal would be visible. Whilst no undue harm would arise in this regard, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, leading to the conclusion below. Conclusion 13.For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR 1 Waltham Forest Local Plan – Development Management Policies (2013). 2 Waltham Forest Local Plan – Core Strategy (2012).