Loft conversion to include rear dormers and front rooflights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 September 2018 by Peter D Biggers BSc Hons MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02nd October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3205691 4 Garden Close, Barnet EN5 3EW  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 I Alfassa against the decision of the London Borough of Barnet Council.  The application Ref 18/2458/HSE, dated 23 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 June 2018.  The development proposed is loft conversion to include rear dormers and front rooflights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the charact er and appearance of the host dwelling and the surroundings of Garden Close. Reasons 3. Garden Close where the appeal property is located, is a cul-de sac of large, modern, detached, 2 storey houses constructed in brick with render and half- timber detailing under tiled roofs. Some of the houses in the Close, including the appeal property, have small pitched roof dormers or half dormers generally set low in the front roof slope and which are part of the first floor accommodation. Only one property in the close (No 5) currently has rooflights visible on the front elevation. 4. Specifically in respect of residential development, the Council has published a Supplementary Planning Document – Barnet Residential Design Guidance (SPD) which includes guidance relating to extensions. In respect of dormer roof extensions the guidance states that dormer roof extensions can be acceptable in principle but should normally be subordinate features on the roof. They should reflect the style and proportion of windows on the existing house and to retain the balance of the house, the dormer roof extension should not normally be wider than the window below it. Dormers may have flat, gabled, hipped or curved roofs but should normally align with the windows below. 5. I acknowledge that the windows themselves within the proposed dormers do reflect the pattern of the casement windows in the first floor of the host dwelling but they would not all align and, with their dormer framing, they would be wider and deeper than the windows in the floor below and appear top heavy as a result. Moreover the flat roof style to the dormers set high in the roof, almost to ridge Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3205691 2 height, would appear dominant and out of keeping with the style of other pitched roof dormers in the Close. 6. The design proposed for the dormers would not therefore meet the guidance set out in the SPD. I acknowledge that the dormers would not be visible from the Close itself but would be visible in some private views in which they would appear incongruous in a context where rear roof slopes are largely unaltered. In any event, the general advice in the SPD in respect of all extensions is that they should enhance suburban character and respect the original building by being consistent in form, scale and style. The proposal would not achieve this objective. I note the appellant’s reference to other decisions regarding dormer roof extensions but just because some applications have been approved contrary to the SPD guidance does not justify doing so in this case and I have determined the proposal on its own merits. 7. Regarding the front rooflights proposed to help light the loft extension, as already stated, the neighbouring property has front rooflights similar to that proposed at No 4. I am satisfied that, due to their size and siting, they would not have any significant adverse effect on the property and streetscape. Whilst it is open to me to issue a split decision allowing a proposal in part; in this particular case the rooflights on the front of the building are clearly an integral part of the proposed loft conversion and would be physically and functionally linked to the roof alteration. It is not therefore possible to issue a split decision. 8. For the reasons above, the proposed design of dormers would be unacceptable and, whilst I acknowledge that the SPD is guidance only, the harm to the character and appearance of the host property would also fail to deliver the policy objectives of both Barnet’s Local Plan Core Strategy policy CS5 and Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies – policy DM01 both of which seek high standards of design to respect local context and preserve and enhance local character. Other Matters 9. It is noted that the appellants, in proposing the loft conversion and dormers at No 4 are seeking to make sustainable and effective use of their home, an objective which is encouraged by the Framework. However, whilst I understand the wish to provide increased accommodation to meet family needs allowing them to stay in the property, I am not persuaded that the dormers could not have been designed in a way more appropriate to the appeal property and its surroundings. Accordingly the need for increased accommodation would not outweigh the detrimental impact of the rear dormer extensions on the character and appearance of the property and the surroundings of Garden Close. 10. A neighbouring occupant has expressed concern about overlooking from the proposed dormers which would impact on privacy. However the property already has first floor windows looking northwards and the effect of any additional overlooking from the two new bedroom windows would be minimal. Conclusion 11. In reaching my decision I have had regard to the matters before me and for the reasons stated above the appeal should be dismissed. P. D. Biggers INSPECTOR