Retrospective planning permission for alterations to planning approval P0869.16 to incorporate a small box dormer behind two front dormers and justification of two dormers as built match that of approved application

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 December 2018 by N Smith BA (hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/D/18/3215373 153 Hillview Avenue, Hornchurch, RM11 2DL • 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 Spaces Architecture Ltd against the decision of London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref P1089.18, dated 13th July 2018, was refused by notice dated 4th October 2018. • The development proposed is described as retrospective planning permission for alterations to planning approval P0869.16 to incorporate a small box dormer behind two front dormers and justification of two dormers as built match that of approved application. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to planning approval P0869.16 to incorporate a box dormer behind two front dormers at 153 Hillview Avenue, Hornchurch, RM11 2DL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P1089.18, dated 13th July 2018. 2. The development has been completed and so no planning conditions are necessary. Procedural Matter 3. I have amended the description of the development from that set out on the application form to make it clearer and to limit it to that information necessary to identify and describe the proposal. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this case is whether the development causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. Hillview Avenue comprises houses of varied sizes and designs, a number of which have front roof extensions of similarly varied styles. As a result, there is no prevailing character against which the development should be compared. Whilst the cumulative extensions to the front roof slope do not match that at the adjoining property, given the lack of consistency in house and roof design in the area, a lack of symmetry in this case does not result in visual harm. The extensions are less deep than two existing front dormer roof extensions and are set up from the level of the eaves of the house. They are not particularly Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/18/3215373 2 prominent and as a result, I find that the siting, scale, mass and bulk of the development is appropriate to this context. 6. Section 9 of the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document provides guidance on the design of roof extensions, which the proposed development is not entirely consistent with, but for the reasons I have set out, I have found that the extensions to the roof maintain the character and appearance of the area. 7. As a result, I find that the development is consistent with Policy DC61 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan which seek, in general terms, to secure high quality development. Conclusion 8. For the reasons that I have described, I find that this appeal should succeed. N Smith INSPECTOR