New pitched roof dormer to replace existing flat roof dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 July 2018 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31st July 2018 Appeal A Reference: APP/B5480/D/18/3197936 19 Cross Road, Mawneys, Romford RM7 8AT  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 G Morris against the decision of Havering London Borough Council.  The application (reference P1751.1, dated 24 October 2017) was refused by notice dated 20 December 2017  The development proposed is described in the application form as a “new pitched roof dormer to replace existing flat roof dormer”. Appeal B Reference: APP/B5480/D/18/3200704 19 Cross Road, Mawneys, Romford RM7 8AT  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 G Morris against the decision of Havering London Borough Council.  The application (reference P1955.17, dated 29 November 2017) was refused by notice dated 25 January 2018.  The development proposed is described in the application form as “extend existing rear dormer”. Appeal C Reference: APP/B5480/D/18/3200745 19 Cross Road, Mawneys, Romford RM7 8AT  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 G Morris against the decision of Havering London Borough Council.  The application (reference P1952.17, dated 29 November 2017) was refused by notice dated 25 January 2018.  The development proposed is described in the application form as “install new rooflight to dormer”. Decisions 1. Appeal A is dismissed. Appeal Decision: APP/B5480/D/18/3197936, APP/B5480/D/18/3200704 & APP/B5480/D/18/3200745 2 2. Appeal B is allowed and planning permission is granted for the extension of a rear dormer, at 19 Cross Road, Mawneys, Romford RM7 8AT, in accordance with the terms of the application (reference P1955.17, dated 29 November 2017) and the plans submitted with it (insofar as they relate to the development for which planning permission is hereby granted and which has already been carried out). 3. Appeal C is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of a new rooflight to a dormer, at the rear of 19 Cross Road, Mawneys, Romford RM7 8AT, in accordance with the terms of the application (reference P1952.17, dated 29 November 2017) and the plans submitted with it (insofar as they relate to the development for which planning permission is hereby granted and which has already been carried out). Preliminary point 4. This Decision relates to three separate appeals for different sections of work that have been carried out at the same address. Retrospective planning applications have been made, by the same applicant in each case. The submitted drawings showing “existing and proposed elevations and floor plans” have the same base drawing, with minor variations to the drawing relating to each element of the work. For practical reasons, therefore, this Decision deals with the three appeals together. Main issue 5. The main issue to be determined in each of these appeals is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings. Reasons 6. The appeal site lies in an area of long established residential development that mainly comprises closely built up frontages, with some newer infill development. The buildings appear to date mainly from the Interwar period and there is a considerable variation in the size and style of the existing dwellings, though they are predominantly traditional in character, of one or two storeys with pitched roofs. 7. Number 19 Cross Road is a large “chalet bungalow”, with front and rear eaves at single storey height but with extensive accommodation at first floor level. The property has been altered and extended in various ways and is now a substantial dwelling. 8. Certain recent extensions are the subject of the current appeals. On the front elevation a large dormer feature has been created across much of the width of the original main front roof slope, rising to a ridge in the centre of the dormer. The high gable that has thus been created, facing Cross Road, includes a tall, pointed central window that lights an interior open space. On the rear elevation, a large dormer has also been created, in this case in a “box dormer” form, with a flat roof. A large rooflight has been added to the flat roof of the dormer, to light a new bathroom. 9. Among other things, national planning policies (including the recently revised version of the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’) continue to emphasise the Appeal Decision: APP/B5480/D/18/3197936, APP/B5480/D/18/3200704 & APP/B5480/D/18/3200745 3 importance of achieving good design and they make it plain that new development should be sympathetic to its surroundings. 10. An emphasis on the importance of good design is also to be found in the Development Plan, including Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of ‘The London Plan’ and Policy DC61 of the ‘Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document’ that was adopted by the Council in 2008. 11. The Council’s ‘Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document’ (adopted in 2011) is also relevant, though it does not have the same force as Policies in the Development Plan. 12. The construction of a pitched roof over the pre-existing front dormer window has created a wide gable feature that dominates the front elevation of the building. The relatively shallow roof pitch is uncharacteristic of traditional construction, while the tall new central window is out of scale with the host building and alien to traditional patterns of fenestration. It is wholly unlike the central dormer and balcony that once adorned the front roof slope and it is very different from the more modest flat roofed dormer that is illustrated in the submitted drawings of the “existing east elevation”. 13. In short, the front dormer construction, for which planning permission is now sought, is ungainly and overly dominant, plainly out of character with its host building and the surrounding area. It conflicts with both national and local policies that are intended to encourage good design and it fails to respect the Council’s design guidance. The increased ceiling heights and improved natural lighting internally make only a minimal contribution to the quality of the accommodation, though the impact of the pitched dormer on the external appearance of the building causes real harm to the streetscene. Hence, I have concluded that this element of the works ought not to be allowed. 14. The new dormer at the rear of the property is less visually intrusive in the streetscene, though it is obvious in views from the new houses that have been constructed at the rear of the appeal site, in Field View Close, behind the line of the frontage properties in Cross Road. Although the dormer is bulky, it relates reasonably well to other flat roofed elements, forming a coherent design as a whole. Moreover, it is acknowledged that other properties in the vicinity have “box dormer” rear extensions that have created a new architectural idiom for the locality, in practice. 15. In any case, it is important to take account of the previous grant of planning permission, albeit for a smaller rear dormer, and of the existence of “permitted development” rights that can apply to the construction of rear dormers. Although this scheme has exceeded what would have been authorised, these other factors are material considerations in this case. Hence, I have concluded that the rear dormer, as constructed, is not so unsatisfactory as to justify a refusal of permission. 16. The rear dormer does make a useful addition to the accommodation at number 19 Cross Road and I am persuaded that the project does not cause unacceptable harm to the appearance of the host building or its surroundings. Hence, it is not in conflict with the national legislation or the Development Plan, in principle, and it is acceptable in planning terms. In short, the scheme before me can properly be permitted and, although I have considered all the matters Appeal Decision: APP/B5480/D/18/3197936, APP/B5480/D/18/3200704 & APP/B5480/D/18/3200745 4 that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. 17. The new rooflight, which is the subject of the third appeal, has been constructed over part of the rear dormer referred to above. The rooflight serves a grand new bathroom and has a dramatic lighting effect on the interior. The exterior construction has no significant visual impact on the garden of the appeal site itself, but it is evidently visible from nearby properties, notably from Field View Close. Again, however, I am persuaded that the rooflight is not so visually intrusive that it is unacceptable in planning terms or contrary to planning policies. 18. To summarise, Appeal A is dismissed, while Appeals B and C are allowed, for the rear dormer and rooflight, as constructed. Since this work has already been completed, no conditions are necessary. Roger C Shrimplin INSPECTOR