Retrospective application for the increase in ridge height and retention of dormer walls built within 200mm of eaves and retention of Juliet balcony at first floor level

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 June 2018 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U5930/D/18/3200281 37 Coppermill Lane, London, E17 7HA  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 and Mrs Karayel against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Waltham Forest.  The application Ref 174549, dated 19 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 15 February 2018.  The development proposed is retrospective application for the increase in ridge height and retention of dormer walls built within 200mm of eaves and retention of Juliet balcony at first floor level. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. A previous application1 for a first floor roof terrace was refused and a previous application2 for a single storey side and rear extension was refused. 3. The appeal property is currently the subject of an enforcement case3. 4. The development the subject of this appeal has already taken place. Main Issues 5. The main issues in this case are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook and privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 6. The appeal property is a two storey brick-built terraced dwelling located along Coppermill Lane within a residential area. The dwelling has been extended to the rear. Like other properties along Coppermill Lane, the appeal property is set back from the road behind a small garden area and has a longer garden to the rear. 1 Ref: 173684. 2 Ref: 170708. 3 Ref: 478239. Appeal Decision APP/U5930/D/18/3200281 2 7. The appeal property’s rear garden and those of its neighbours along Coppermill Lane, backs on to the rear gardens of houses along Hazelwood Road. This garden-to-garden juxtaposition provides for a very pleasant green environment setting, with a sense of spaciousness, to the rear of the appeal property. 8. During my site visit, I observed that, whilst many houses have been altered and/or extended, such changes tend to appear in keeping with the host property and with the surrounding area. As a consequence, there is a sense of uniformity along Coppermill Lane, where the facades with bay windows, roofscape and overall pattern of development come together in an attractive, regular rhythm, not unduly harmed by occasional alterations and additions. 9. Whilst, to the rear of Coppermill Lane, the pattern of development is less regular, extensions and additions generally respect the appearance of host properties and that of the surrounding area. As noted above, the juxtaposition of properties is such that neighbours can look out across one another’s gardens and in the case of occupants of Coppermill Lane and Hazelwood Road, directly towards each other. As such, changes to rear elevations tend to be such that they can be widely observed. 10.In this regard, the presence of a door at first floor level on the extension to the rear of the appeal property draws attention to itself as an incongruous feature, out of character with its surroundings where no such feature exists. 11.The harmful impact of the above is exacerbated as a result of the presence of the large, bulky and boxy dormer extension at roof level. The height and boxy appearance of this serves to draw attention to itself and the first floor door, leading the dormer and door to appear unduly prominently in their surroundings. 12.Further to the above, the additions to the roof appear large and bulky, and fail to appear subordinate to the host property, such that the roof dominates its appearance. When seen from the rear, the roof appears unsightly and imposing, “looming” above its surroundings. 13.Taking all of the above into account, I consider that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), to Waltham Forest Core Strategy (2012) (Core Strategy) policies CS2, CS13 and CS15, to Waltham Forest Local Plan Development Management Policies (2013) (DMP) policies DM4, DM29 and DM32, and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Extensions, Alterations (2010), which together amongst other things, protect local character. Living Conditions 14.As noted above, the development “looms” above its surroundings. This is particularly noticeable from the garden areas below the development and the harmful impact arising is exacerbated as a result of the extensive areas of glazing, such that the development overlooks gardens from a dominant position. 15.I consider that the above results in a “double-whammy” effect, such that the “looming” form of development appears oppressive, to the detriment of the Appeal Decision APP/U5930/D/18/3200281 3 outlook of neighbouring occupiers; and the glazed areas looking down on surrounding gardens reduce the sense of privacy that neighbours might reasonably anticipate when sitting in their gardens. 16.Consequently, I find that the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook. This would be contrary to the Framework, to Core Strategy policies CS2, CS13 and CS15, to DMP policies DM4, DM29 and DM32, and to the Council’s SPD, which together amongst other things seek to protect residential amenity. Other Matters 17.The applicants state that the appeal extensions only “marginally exceed” development that would be acceptable as permitted development. Whether or not this is the case, I have found that the development results in significant harm to local character and residential amenity and this has led to my decision below. Conclusion 18.For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR