Roof extension involving alteration to the pitch of the roof, rear dormer window, and two front and one side rooflights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 December 2018 by Nick Fagan BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/18/3215065 2 Manor Drive, Friern Barnet, London N20 0DX  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 Kevin Quinn against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.  The application Ref 18/3706/HSE, dated 12 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 August 2018.  The development proposed is a roof extension involving alteration to the pitch of the roof, rear dormer window, and two front and one side rooflights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the rear dormer window on the character and appearance of the dwelling, the terrace of houses of which it forms a part and the wider area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is the first house on the western side of Manor Drive, on the corner of Raleigh Drive, an end-of-terrace dwelling. Its rear roof is prominent in the streetscene when standing outside 9 Raleigh Drive and also from the houses opposite at Nos 12-24 (even) Raleigh Drive. 4. The dormer window, even with the increase in the pitch of the side hipped roof, would occupy the majority of the width of the roof and clearly would not be a subordinate extension to the house, which has already been significantly extended to the side. It would be prominent in the streetscene. 5. The Council’s Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that extensions should reflect the style and proportion of the existing dwelling and should not occupy more than half the width or half the depth of the roof slope. The proposed dormer would fail to comply with that guidance and would dominate the rear elevation of the building as seen from the street. 6. I have taken note of the appellant’s letter of 17 October 2018 in which he sets out his personal circumstances and reasons for requiring the additional loft bedroom. However, such circumstances are not unique since many households contain people with specific health conditions. I appreciate that the appellant Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/18/3215065 2 and his family want to remain in the house for the foreseeable future. But the proposed extension would be a permanent addition to the building, which would endure beyond the needs of the appellant or his family. I also note that this dwelling has already had a large two-storey side extension, which makes it considerably larger than the neighbouring houses in this terrace including by providing it with additional bedrooms. 7. There are other large rear dormer extensions in the vicinity, which can be seen from the property’s rear garden. But these extensions do not enhance the character or appearance of their host dwellings or that of the area generally and as such do not comprise any justification for another insubordinately large dormer. 8. I conclude for the above reasons that the proposed rear dormer window would significantly harm the character and appearance of the dwelling, the terrace of houses of which it form a part and the wider area. 9. Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s adopted Core Strategy and Policy DM01 of the adopted Development Management Policies DPD together require good design that preserves or enhances local character. The proposal would fail to accord with these development plan Policies and the personal circumstances of the appellant do not outweigh this failure to accord with the development plan for the above reasons. It would also fail to meet the SPD guidelines as set out above, which serve to illustrate the requirements of these Policies. 10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Nick Fagan INSPECTOR